Do you believe that during recent history, over the last 7 to 8 years, that certain Inner London Boroughs have paid up to five figure sums to their previous tenants to move out of their borough ?
If it's true, do you object as a bad financial deal for the borough or on moral grounds?
Strategic re-housing from inner-London boroughs is nothing new - Dagenham, Debden, Harlow and the other New Towns..
Workers were moved in to the Isle of Dogs as labour for the docks. When that need ended and the area attracted high-value redevelopment, bribing a stubborn sitting tenant to move out could make sense.
If the issue is believed it would appear that the financial deal benefited those who moved, as they were paid, and not, for want of a better phrase, the receiving borough.
I should point out that I did not express an opinion on the poll as at this stage I think it would be inappropriate. I just posed the question.
Whilst I can see your point of including Dagenham in the New Town policy as it did grow up to provide housing for the expanding industry in the area. However other New Towns were generally developed post WW2 to re-house the vicitms of the war and not as Dagenham was, before WW2.
In those context the supply preceded the demand. IF the point of the poll is to be believed then the demand exceeded the supply.
In relation to the Isle of Dogs I think that as the docks grew and became a major employer then so did the housing to meet that demand.
I find it hard to accept, as you suggest that property developers would offer a financial inducement to people in order to get them out, surely not ???
>I
find it hard to accept, as you suggest that property developers would offer a
financial inducement to people in order to get them out, surely not
???
Did you leave a smiley off that? :-)
I'm sure you really know that offering to pay a sitting tenant who is blocking sale or redevelopment of a property to move out is a standard and legitimate practice?
I have known people who were given a resettlement payment. This was to pay for moving costs, redecoration of a property and sometimes furniture. I understand Tower Hamlets did this a lot. I was surprised that some boroughs own property all over the UK
Donkey, The omission of the smiley face was unintentional, the comment was either sarcastic or ironic, sarcastic I believe but to the practice described not your comment. :-)
What has been suggested to me and prompted the poll did not involve compulsory purchase practices by local authorities, nor as Neil Sec mentions, a resettlement grant/payment.
The suggestion is, as I alluded to in the poll, amounts of money in excess of five figures were paid to some individuals.
Its an issue that I have heard from a few diverse sources which I would evidence to show that I am not making a political point but would just be interested if and how the practice operates.
This practice started some years ago with people moving from Westminster originally, then Hackney and Tower Hamlets paying "up to £100,000" to move out, mainly into our borough.
This was strongly denied for a long time and then a few years ago was openly admitted in a television documentary.
We had our house up for sale about 10 years ago and at least two of the buyers had big cash deposits to move which substantiated these claims.
This all started some years ago when of course it was widely denied it was happening but eventually it was on a TV programme admitting what we already knew. I can't remember how long ago, or what programme but again under FOI this can be found out.
I'd love £100K to move. Some got £50k, some a bit less; don't know how the system worked but that's why we've got so many 'wonderful' residents in this borough now. Just think, if all our kids had been given these sums to set up home they wouldn't be struggling with unaffordable mortgages now.
It's a well known fact that there are many over 30's still living at home with their parents because they can't even get a council flat, let alone a house. Over TVE where they're building like there's no tomorrow it's nearly all 4 and 5 bedroom houses, so who do you think is going in them?
It's a real problem now, especially if parents die and the offspring have to get out of the house; they are being told to go to hostels. This is England these days; unlikely this would be said to an immigrant - against their Human Rights!
I don't know what TVE is? But there are plenty of blocks full of rabbit-hutch accommodation in Ilford. Trouble is, they were designed to make quick money for the council by selling as buy-to-let, and the bottom fell out of that market. Hence the question whether to even bother finishing Pioneer Point, and the reprive for the Kenneth More Theatre, whose site was earmarked for another quick-profit residential tower block.
These are grants to Westminster Council Tenants to move to smaller properties. From what I can tell the highest grant possible (according to this doc) is £17,500 and that would be for moving from a 5 bed to a one bed place.
Likewise I do not know what TVE is, but I'm sure that I will be informed soon. In relation to the rabbit hutches it again seems to be ill an conceived policy. Plenty of one bed properties, plenty of four/five bed properties but little in between whether to but or rent.
The Parker Morris Committe drew up specs for housing in the 60s. It included size (area/volume) minima. It was abanodned in 1980 as a requirement becusse of cost, but per this wikipedia article " The Office of the Mayor of London has also opted to move to adopt a Design Guide for Housing within the city which will be 10% more generous than the Parker Morris Standards. This guide was published on 19 August 2010 and will be implemented from April 2011".
Why does the fact that Rachman was a Polish "immigrant" (in fact he was fleeing the Nazis, being Jewish) make what he did as a landlord any worse? If he had been ethnic British, would what he did have been OK?
Sorry but when you make future posts could you please ensure that they are available in 21 other languages ? Sorry just have to nip to Wilko's. I'v broken my wooden spoon :-)
We have to say what we feel,other wise what is the point of a forum? The majority of the population in Barking Town Centre are people from other countries,rather than the natives Yes or no? Who is turning the Centre into a ghetto?Could you please tell me what is good about Barking.
A Ghetto is a poor area populated mainly/only by a particular ethnic group (originally Jewish people). We know what an ethnic group is, and we can't change our ethnicity or anyone else's, so that leaves us with poverty and its causes. That is a massive subject - too big for here, I think, and not really apt for B&D specifically.
According to one source I saw, in 2010 56.4% of the population of B&D was white British/Irish. That could well have fallen by now, and you are only referring to Barking where I believe it is lower [ especially Abbey Ward, I believe.
When we say what we feel, we can affect what other people feel when they read/hear what we say. Honesty is good, but so is sparing others' feelings.
I know you mean "what is good about Barking?" rhetorically, but we could make a good thread of trying to actually answer it with actual good things - ?
Comments
Strategic re-housing from inner-London boroughs is nothing new - Dagenham, Debden, Harlow and the other New Towns..
Workers were moved in to the Isle of Dogs as labour for the docks. When that need ended and the area attracted high-value redevelopment, bribing a stubborn sitting tenant to move out could make sense.
What particular anecdote are you thinking of?
If the issue is believed it would appear that the financial deal benefited those who moved, as they were paid, and not, for want of a better phrase, the receiving borough.
I should point out that I did not express an opinion on the poll as at this stage I think it would be inappropriate. I just posed the question.
Whilst I can see your point of including Dagenham in the New Town policy as it did grow up to provide housing for the expanding industry in the area. However other New Towns were generally developed post WW2 to re-house the vicitms of the war and not as Dagenham was, before WW2.
In those context the supply preceded the demand. IF the point of the poll is to be believed then the demand exceeded the supply.
In relation to the Isle of Dogs I think that as the docks grew and became a major employer then so did the housing to meet that demand.
I find it hard to accept, as you suggest that property developers would offer a financial inducement to people in order to get them out, surely not ???
Did you leave a smiley off that? :-)
I'm sure you really know that offering to pay a sitting tenant who is blocking sale or redevelopment of a property to move out is a standard and legitimate practice?
The omission of the smiley face was unintentional, the comment was either sarcastic or ironic, sarcastic I believe but to the practice described not your comment. :-)
What has been suggested to me and prompted the poll did not involve compulsory purchase practices by local authorities, nor as Neil Sec mentions, a resettlement grant/payment.
The suggestion is, as I alluded to in the poll, amounts of money in excess of five figures were paid to some individuals.
Its an issue that I have heard from a few diverse sources which I would evidence to show that I am not making a political point but would just be interested if and how the practice operates.
This was strongly denied for a long time and then a few years ago was openly admitted in a television documentary.
We had our house up for sale about 10 years ago and at least two of the buyers had big cash deposits to move which substantiated these claims.
Thanks
I'd love £100K to move. Some got £50k, some a bit less; don't know how the system worked but that's why we've got so many 'wonderful' residents in this borough now. Just think, if all our kids had been given these sums to set up home they wouldn't be struggling with unaffordable mortgages now.
It's a real problem now, especially if parents die and the offspring have to get out of the house; they are being told to go to hostels. This is England these days; unlikely this would be said to an immigrant - against their Human Rights!
These are grants to Westminster Council Tenants to move to smaller properties. From what I can tell the highest grant possible (according to this doc) is £17,500 and that would be for moving from a 5 bed to a one bed place.
In relation to the rabbit hutches it again seems to be ill an conceived policy. Plenty of one bed properties, plenty of four/five bed properties but little in between whether to but or rent.
We in the UK have the smallest home by living area in Europe, were you aware of that fact?
Thy only place that these is luxury is in the wallets of these modern day RACKMANS.......
Are you looking at this? :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8201900.stm
I'm not sure the statistics are quite comparing like with like. But yes, a lot of the new-builds are very small.
Heres another survey which put us a lot nearer the top:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_siz_of_hou-people-size-of-houses
Is it more important that childrem should have separate bedrooms, or that they should be large rooms? Funny things, statistics!
I guess you mean Rachman? Spell him right or we miss the additional point against him - he was a Polish immigrant.
The Parker Morris Committe drew up specs for housing in the 60s. It included size (area/volume) minima. It was abanodned in 1980 as a requirement becusse of cost, but per this wikipedia article " The Office of the Mayor of London has also opted to move to adopt a Design Guide for Housing within the city which will be 10% more generous than the Parker Morris Standards. This guide was published on 19 August 2010 and will be implemented from April 2011".
The actual guide is here http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/housing/london-housing-design-guide but it only seems to apply to homes developed with public funding, which narrows it right down.
Or is it the "Knee-Jerk PC-when-it-suits-me Ranting Forum"? We'll see, in a moment. :-)
We have to say what we feel,other wise what is the point of a forum? The majority of the population in Barking Town Centre are people from other countries,rather than the natives Yes or no? Who is turning the Centre into a ghetto?Could you please tell me what is good about Barking.
According to one source I saw, in 2010 56.4% of the population of B&D was white British/Irish. That could well have fallen by now, and you are only referring to Barking where I believe it is lower [ especially Abbey Ward, I believe.
When we say what we feel, we can affect what other people feel when they read/hear what we say. Honesty is good, but so is sparing others' feelings.
I know you mean "what is good about Barking?" rhetorically, but we could make a good thread of trying to actually answer it with actual good things - ?
Comments are closed. Why not start a new conversation?