Gardens not accessible to social tenants

[FiddlesticksAkimbo]

Is this sort of thing reasonable?

Social and affordable housing residents are being denied access to the gardens of a multimillion pound West London development despite political promises to ban segregated play areas
www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/27/disabled-children-among-social-tenants-blocked-from-communal-gardens

It seems reasonable to me, on the basis that if you don't pay for it then you can't expect to use it, but I'm interested to see what other people think.

More clicky?

www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/27/disabled-children-among-social-tenants-blocked-from-communal-gardens

What a horrible attitude. It's a play area for children not an exclusive gym membership or swanky member club. Why should children be denied somewhere to play? Why would anyone want to further segregate disadvantaged children?

No i dont agree Its segregation purely based on what someone can afford.

Picture it. a kid playing in the gardens collapses while playing.

Should a nurse who lives on the social housing side go in to help the child? Or should she abide by the rules and not enter. The rules that id bet money would be forgotten about toot suite were this situation to occur.

Digital id bet money on the fact that the same people who agree with this would also be the same ones who would then moan about poorer kids being overweight.......................oh wait this has already happened...................Yes im looking at you Loose Women.

I see your point Helena, but how would you suggest the gardens be paid for?

Helena I agree. They will also be the ones moaning that children are playing near their cars or on street corners

OP when there is a will there is a way.

BTW do you think it is OK for 4 year olds to know that they can't play with their class friend because their parents are poor?

Life and death of a child is not comparable to daily access to play

But if the access is not paid for, then no, they don’t get access.

The bigger issue is the gap between people. I don’t know how this can be fixed. I think that access to the garden should be a compulsory part of the social housing. The local authority should never be given the option to not pay for it.

If those families haven't been through enough.
It's typical of our country, shameful.

What's the problem? Private leaseholders pay service charges for the facilities, social tenants do not. Therefore why should social tenants be permitted use of something for which they do not pay? There are public green spaces they can use which are set aside specifically for the public provided from council taxes. Would you let me have use of your private garden?

Fiddlesticks seen as all public play areas and parks are council funded and the social housing is council funded I would argue that they are paying for it already.

I see your point Helena, but how would you suggest the gardens be paid for? What is the extra cost of allowing more children into a garden that has already been paid for? More wear and teat, so slightly hier maintenance charges, but that's about it, isn't it?

If they are not paying a contribution to the upkeep of the common areas, then its right they can't use them.

Life’s not fair is it.

If you don’t pay for it then you can’t access it. There are municipal parks and playgrounds.

My company signs a small part of work on some new builds and the difference between the social housing side and private side is sometimes shocking.

Social side - plain concrete walls in the hallways, no carpet, poorer security systems on the doors, no parking.

Private side (literally in the same block though) plush carpets, pictures on the hallway walls, all the parking allocated to them.

More wear and teat, so slightly hier maintenance charges, but that's about it, isn't it?

I think so, but it's a pretty expensive monthly fee, and not covered by housing benefit. It would need to come from the tenants'own pockets.

"Disabled children and former Grenfell residents are among social housing tenants being deliberately blocked from communal gardens, entrances and a car park on a multimillion-pound development in west London."

Jesus havent they been through enough. MN has got a really shit reputation re. attitudes towards social housing amongst all the housing related contacts i have and the Grenfell residents. Im sure this will help immensely

Therefore why should social tenants be permitted use of something for which they do not pay?

Why should non-tax-payers be allowed to use schools, roads and hospitals for which they don't pay?

Why should council-funded elderly people benefit from care home facilities enabled by higher fees from self-funding residents?

If you can't afford it you can't use it a few people have said that. If we go by that logic they we should get rid off ALL subsidised things including but not limited to OAP bus passes and heating allowances, free childcare, student loans, scholarships.

And Happyspud clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy that would occur

Happy either they are allowed in the gardens or not You cant have it both ways.

I could understand a gym or an indoor softplay within the building but a park is pretty outrageous

Where I work it would be easier for all our staff and clients to walk in the front entrance of the building that we part rent but we can’t because we do pay for that part of the building. Simple as that we don’t pay so we can’t use it same as this situation.

If it’s a communal garden for a private development, I don’t see the problem. You couldn’t just go and use someone’s private garden cos you feel like it. There should of course be places for everyone (including social tenants) to play but that’s not someone else’s private garden.

*dont pay for it

If we go by that logic they we should get rid off ALL subsidised things including but not limited to OAP bus passes and heating allowances, free childcare, student loans, scholarships.

I think it's a question of what warrants being paid for out of public money for those who can't afford to pay themselves. Personally I'd agree with the list you've given, I'd include quite a few more things, including for that matter public parks. I wouldn't add swanky gardens.