poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 It isn't social cleansing but making best use of resource. When house one family when you could house a dozen families and have cash left over for other services? Er, you are obviously not familiar with the tactics of Southwark Council and their blunders. This is what happened a few years ago: Heygate Estate. The Elephant and Castle regeneration is a £1.5billion scheme to redevelop the area around the Elephant and Castle road junction. The first phase includes the complete demolition of the Heygate Estate, to be replaced with 2,500 new homes.[8] Its demolition cost approximately £8.5 million, with an additional £35 million needed to rehouse the residents.[2] Heygate residents were originally promised new homes as part of the regeneration, but these had not been built by the time they were 'decanted' off the estate in 2007.[9] A council blunder in Feb 2013 revealed that it had sold the 9 hectare estate to Lend Lease Group for just £50m, having spent £44m emptying the site and planning the redevelopment.[10] Also, why didn't the council hold onto the Freehold of the house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jew Boy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 "Councillors said the cost of repairing the Georgian building meant that auctioning it off and reinvesting the money into new housing stock made the most economic sense." Isn't it better to use the money to either improve the existing stock or build some more? I think they have done a fabulous thing. They can now build many many more homes than the single home they just sold. Sure its a nice 200 year old house but just imagine what they can do with all that money. I just hope they reinvest it all in more social housing and facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 "Councillors said the cost of repairing the Georgian building meant that auctioning it off and reinvesting the money into new housing stock made the most economic sense." Isn't it better to use the money to either improve the existing stock or build some more? It also gets the rif-raf out of the centre of london too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 I think they have done a fabulous thing. They can now build many many more homes than the single home they just sold. Sure its a nice 200 year old house but just imagine what they can do with all that money. I just hope they reinvest it all in more social housing and facilities. In theory it sounds great, but this is Southwark council we are talking about. They don't have a good record doing this sort of thing. See my previous post 11. re. The Heygate Estate. ---------- Post added 29-10-2013 at 11:29 ---------- It also gets the rif-raf out of the centre of london too I see you've edited your post from the under class to the riff raff. Yes, let's see the middle-class clean the toilets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 And the owner will get a council grant to bring it up to standard. You do seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over this one. You seem upset that the council is selling a property worth £3 million. I would be more upset at the council renting out a £3 million at a tiny rent, but no doubt you would be the first to bleat if it were rented to a millionaire for £100K per year. On the subject of restoration grants, the maximum grant is the same for a £50K property as a £3 million one. £7500 over 3 years isn't likely to make a huge dent into the bills of whoever decides to restore the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 You do seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over this one. You seem upset that the council is selling a property worth £3 million. I would be more upset at the council renting out a £3 million at a tiny rent, but no doubt you would be the first to bleat if it were rented to a millionaire for £100K per year. On the subject of restoration grants, the maximum grant is the same for a £50K property as a £3 million one. £7500 over 3 years isn't likely to make a huge dent into the bills of whoever decides to restore the place. No, you are the one getting your knickers in a twist and avoiding to address the factual record of this council re. my post 11, and this council's history of incompetence in selling & providing housing for council tenants and the fact they allowed it to stay in a derelict state for 30 years, making it's condition worse. The crime is, these councils suddenly discover these neglected properties on their books, similar to other local councils in London. Many squatters who have lived in these houses for 12 years, then reclaim them from the council for nowt. That's Council incompetence for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 No, you are the one getting your knickers in a twist and avoiding to address the factual record of this council re. my post 11, and the fact they allowed it to stay in a derelict state for 30 years, making it's condition worse. The crime is, these councils suddenly discover these neglected properties on their books, similar to other local councils in London. Many squatters who have lived in these houses for 12 years, then reclaim them from the council for nowt. That's Council incompetence for you. That would be a bit like Sheffield Council suddenly discovering Cobnar Cottage as being derelict and attempting to sell that. The upkeep on a £3 million property is rather a lot, particularly if squatters have wrecked it. No doubt you would be moaning if a council spent millions on maintaining such properties, although you seem to be moaning your self round in circles on this one and I am yet to work out your actual opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 That would be a bit like Sheffield Council suddenly discovering Cobnar Cottage as being derelict and attempting to sell that. The upkeep on a £3 million property is rather a lot, particularly if squatters have wrecked it. No doubt you would be moaning if a council spent millions on maintaining such properties, although you seem to be moaning your self round in circles on this one and I am yet to work out your actual opinion. That's just it, the property wasn't worth £3 million 30 years ago when it would have been cheaper to renovate it. Who said anything about squatters being in this house throughout this period? They only moved in today, as a protest. I see you still haven't addressed my post 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 That's just it, the property wasn't worth £3 million 30 years ago when it would have been cheaper to renovate it. Who said anything about squatters being in this house throughout this period? They only moved in today, as a protest. I see you still haven't addressed my post 11. But it is worth £3 million today. That sounds like a pretty good investment to me. It seems like the problem is the squatters not the council. It is the squatters that are wasting tax payers money. Why would I address point 11. It wasn't addressed to me. I have you tied Prozac? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 [/color][/b] But it is worth £3 million today. That sounds like a pretty good investment to me. It seems like the problem is the squatters not the council. It is the squatters that are wasting tax payers money. Why would I address point 11. It wasn't addressed to me. I have you tied Prozac? Because I did address the point to you in post 11. Whenever people revert to insults and refuse to answer the questions put to them, you can tell they have lost their argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.