Social housing and Syrian Refugees

[Plentymoresharks]

Controversial one. A memo has gone out from the local council to local residents, asking whether anyone has a property they can offer for Syrian refugees, housing benefit will be paid as well as a premium and money to hold the property until it is occupied, money for decorating and repairing the property etc.

Aibu to find it ridiculous that basically the council will be housing refugees who have been flown around the world ahead of people already on the waiting list for social housing? Also, there are homeless people who I see every day, living in the park and under a car park bridge but they aren't getting this same help (the memo mentions the social and medical help the refugees will also be given).

It is more than a bit mad to house these refugees in the most expensive part of the country. Why can't they go to a place where housing is cheaper.

The U.K.?

I can't agree - the population is a huge concern for me and increasing building would be something I would feel extremely unhappy about.

I live in Canada

you people build houses. that's why you don't have a generation locked out of housing for good, even in vancouver.

Winterswan you haven't thought this through have you? If building regs are relaxed sufficiently to allow all of our own already homeless people and all refugees both already here and on their way to have adequate housing, what do you envisage the impact will be? London & our other major cities have no building spaces left. Our suburbs are having their green spaces built upon and the face of our countryside changed irrevocably (something that is very important to many of us). Our schools already are turning children away because they're full. GP practices are groaning under the weight of patients requiring care and many of the refugees who arrive here come with severe and complex healthcare needs. In your Eutopia, how is all of this achieved? Money and resources cannot be magicked out of a hat. It would be wonderful to think that we can offer everything to everyone. But the reality is that we simply cannot.

Ohforgodsake

I think you have misread.

I have stated I do not agree with building more houses.

I have said that I am very concerned with the size of our population and the impact this is having on schools and other resources.

Why are you being so rude to me?

"I'm somewhat reluctant to weigh in on this thread, but just wanted to make a correction. , I live in Canada, and the government, and so many of the population are welcoming the refugees with open arms:"

Look at Canada on the map.

It has a rich developed country to the south, the North Pole to the north, and a big, empty, cold sea on either side.

It is FAR harder for large numbers of refugees to turn up in little inflatable boats asking for sanctuary; a much smaller number may find the means to fly in by plane, but not many.

When you know perfectly well that the numbers who come knocking on your country are likely to be both small and (ultimately) under your control, it is far, far easy to find it within yourself to be generous.

Have you ever been on holiday in a poor country and been faced with lots and lots of people begging from you? You give to the first few, and then you give a lot less to half a dozen more, and then after that you just start walking very fast whenever you can see someone who appears to be a beggar moving in your direction. Compassion fatigue sets in as the numbers grow and grow. Even the total liberal hippy types with marijuana leaves appliquéd on their backpacks eventually start brushing the beggars away. You know how I know? Because I have stood on the the side of the road and watched them do it.

Not many refugees arriving in boats to to UK either

I guess that's why this country is committed to taking hardly any?

This stance could maybe be justified if the uk weren't one of the worlds biggest arms dealers, and committed to destabilising the middle east

In light of that, this position is both cynical and revolting

Canada is disgusting too, the number of First Nations reserves which do not have access to clean water and who live in housing that would make a refugee camp look like luxe glamping in comparison

It's great they are taking in refugees, but that First Nations people live like this is a choice by government

I can't agree - the population is a huge concern for me and increasing building would be something I would feel extremely unhappy about.

only a small percentage of the UK is built on. That's even true in England.

The number of teachers is not capped. We can train more. We can buy more wood/bricks and hire more plumbers. The one thing we can't do is get more land, but we have a lot of that. Even in London, where I live, there are plenty of empty homes and derelict buildings, which can't be taken down and replaced due to planning.

it's this attitude that's locked a whole generation out of housing. Countryside before people is how we have gotten here.

Canada is disgusting too, the number of First Nations reserves which do not have access to clean water and who live in housing that would make a refugee camp look like luxe glamping in comparison

that's a problem, but a different one. That's a 200 year old issue, which Canada should rightly be criticized for how it's been dealt with.

but that's an entirely different discussion. People there even in the most expensive cities can still find homes.

are you Canadian, redstarwberry? Because I am, and I know you are talking bollocks

I am american, but lived in Canada for some time.

Because I am, and I know you are talking bollocks

point out where.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree red.

I know I will probably get flamed for this but I don't think that we should take in any refugees. We are not in a position to be able to cope with such an influx of people, we have so many homeless people, ex soldiers that are alone on the streets with no support. That cannot be right! I am all for helping people but we have to help our own citizens before we help refugees, don't get me wrong I feel very sorry for them but there must be another way that the international community can assist these people.

The bit when you said that no matter which city you live in, housing is affordable, even in Vancouver

It was like a neon sign saying 'disregard everything said after this point'

it made me think of British people who think all Americans live in McMansions with swimming pools, like on tv

Nope

has the second most unaffordable housing in the world [[http://globalnews.ca/news/1098143/vancouvers-housing-prices-2nd-most-affordable-in-the-world/]]

Vancouver has the second most unaffordable housing in the world

I would imagine that eventually Syria will have peace and most of the refugees will want to go back.

There is no shortage of housing.

There are 56,000 empty homes in London alone.

Dwindling social housing stock is being sold off to tenants who will sell on to landlords for a massive profit and then more will have to be paid in housing benefit to enable people to live in them. Is a massive con.

Of course we should take in refugees. Lots of people said we should not take in refugees during the Second World War, but most people look back at that stance in horror now.

There is no "influx" of refugees into the UK. THERE ARE MORE OF THEM IN THE CITY OF ISTANBUL THAN IN THE WHOLE OF THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE. We are bombing their country, we should give them sanctuary. It is a moral duty as human beings.

What, shall we just leave them all to die of disease and squalor in overcrowded refugee camps? Barely existing in cities like Istanbul, Ankara, Amman, Beirut, where they are not allowed to work? Many having seen family members murdered and tortured, been orphaned and widowed.

Just because they had the bad luck to be born into a very troubled place?

There are 56,000 empty homes in London alone.

if you read the report, you'll see that a very small percentage are actually ready for use.

The bit when you said that no matter which city you live in, housing is affordable, even in Vancouver

did I say that vancouver is affordable? I never said that.

I know vancouver is incredibly expensive, but my point was that comparing most expensive to most expensive gets you an overall much more favourable picture in Canada.

The BofE governor (a canadian) recently stated that one difference between Canada and the UK is that Canada builds TWICE as many houses as the UK, despite having only half the population.

Also, vancouver is a much smaller portion of the Canadian market, and dwellings are much bigger, so cramming people into overpriced housing is much more feasible.

The more crucial point though is vancouver is a much smaller part of the Canadian market (7% of Canada lives there, where roughly 20% of Brits live in London), and the economic compulsion to live in vancouver is much lower (while London has the lion's share of jobs and economic activity, vancouver doesn't even come close).

Also, does the "second most expensive" city claim include the surrounding suburbs? Because then that only accounts for a quarter of the greater city.

You could say similar about any Canadian city, tbh with respect to house prices

Toronto has similar values.

You are splitting hairs. Whether a house on average costs $500000 or $600000 it is still beyond the affordability of most

Anyway, the point I think I as taking issue with is that Canadians are welcoming refugees because we have so much space/money/houses etc

I think it's more that they've decided to not be inhumane crapbags. They are aiming to take the numbers the uk has pledged by the new year (in contrast to over 5 years it will take for the uk to accomplish this)

I am sure you will have lots of valid justification why the uk should be selling arms, bombing nations then slamming doors closed to refugees

Lol you probably think you are being perfectly rational and making difficult choices too

Bless your heart

average house price in Toronto, including suburbs

Winterswan please accept my apologies. My comments last night were for Red strawberry. My mistake, I'm sorry.

@crappymummy

So, the largest city and biggest immigrant magnet in Canada has housing prices at 60% of London's? and that's supposed to say what?

London & our other major cities have no building spaces left. Our suburbs are having their green spaces built upon and the face of our countryside changed irrevocably (something that is very important to many of us). Our schools already are turning children away because they're full. GP practices are groaning under the weight of patients requiring care and many of the refugees who arrive here come with severe and complex healthcare needs. In your Eutopia, how is all of this achieved?

Not only have I thought about it, but others have too. GPs and teachers aren't a capped resource. We can train and hire more. Schools can be built. the only resource which really is finite is land, but there is in fact a lot of land in this country that's available. Here is the lefty guardian with an article making a case for building on the green belt. But it's not just the green belt. it's brownfields in London. it's derelict buildings that can't be torn down. it's unoccupied houses.

but it all depends on what you value. And while you (a home owner?) love the lovely green belt, generation rent doesn't care about the green belt. There is still plenty of land to build on here.