what is wrong with empty buildings being used by immigrants.

[treesntrees]

Aibu to think that it is better for an area if empty houses, shops and other buildings are rented by immigrants rather than being boarded up. I live in an area where this has happened and I often hear negative views expressed about this by people I like. My usual response is to ask if they preferred it when most of the shops were boarded up and there were streets of boarded up houses. Their replies are usually "Wellll No"
Todays offering was in response to the possibility of a community building being taken out of use. These very likable people were worried that an African church would take over. What is wrong with a church paying rent to use a building which would likely otherwise be boarded up. If it is used as a church several dozen families dressed in their best will be using the building most days in the week rather than the worse elements in the area using it as a drug den and making trouble for the neighbourhood. The building is surrounded by car parks at the back so no obstructions caused by parked cars.

Outself

Please read what I posted upthread at 20.45.

I also posted about being abused and having excrement etc thrown at me from a variety of homeless people being rehomed near me. Please read my posts.

It not about the homeless or immigrants. It is about a basic respect for the community you live in. I had many negative experiences as did my neighbours.

It is not about 'fuck off the homeless' it is a case of understanding and realising that you are no longer 'homeless' and have a community to care for and vice versa when you have a home.

I fully understand that mental health issues, addictions and other problems do not automatically 'go away' with a 'home' being provided but the council staff do not often live next door to that person/family.

I hear NIMBY being mentioned soon.

I wonder if you're reading something into it that's not there? For example I've lived near an African Church and there are issues with having one nearby which have absolutely nothing to do with objecting to immigrants. In my case the church was there before I move there, so I knew exactly what the area was like and I knew what I was letting myself in for and didn't have a problem with it at all. It was good for me because it meant the property I rented was cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

But there were issues which longer standing residents didn't like. The services were on frequently, often early and often late at night, they were incredibly noisy, used sound systems and were jam packed with people. Parking was a nightmare and facilities were used for celebrations which could attract anti-social behaviour at times. I would compare it as being pretty much akin to having a superclub like Gatecrasher or Ministry of Sound on your doorstep in terms of noise and the amount of people.

There can be absolutely perfectly reasonable objections to a change in usage of a building.

I'm sure you have had negative experiences, my point is you can't say The Homeless in general - or more specifically immigrants, who you seem to be talking about in the context that this thread names immigrants - were responsible for shit being thrown at you. My point was the clear disturbance of the INDIVIDUAL who threw shit at you can't really be held against an entire group of people.

Incidentally I'd be interested in hearing about your successful campaign to home homeless people. How did you manage it? What were the arguments and conditions?

Fairyella, fine sorry.

It did appear to me that you seem to think that putting what the OP describes as boarded up properties to use to house "immigrants" -and you'd have to assume any immigrant who is vulnerably accommodated is likely to be in search of asylum as most immigrants work and house themselves- so basically desperate people is crazier than trying to protect property laws which protect the market which is a major cause of inequity in this country. But you're saying you don't think so, fine.

The squats I've known were genuinely brilliant, great little communities providing refuge and other stuff to people who really struggle to fit into the market. It's not their fault, usually, and the market is a bastard, so unforgiving and merciless. I would always want to protect those vulnerable people over and above protecting the rights of people to exploit their capital.

Didn't the OP say these buildings had been already renovated and used.
It was her friends "people she liked" who were complaining.
Unless I'm reading it wrong.

You are right morethanpotatoprints. Several years ago, this area had a very large number of boarded up shops and houses. It was very depressing to walk up the main road. Now most of the shops are tenanted mostly by West Africans but I hear many people making negative remarks about this. Surely it is better that these shops and empty light industrial units are brought back into use. I am sure that as someone upthread has said, sometimes using a building as a church can cause problems is true but the people making their objection to this in my hearing did not mention traffic and noise problems only the fact that they were African.