Grenfell ex-residents should get a 3-bed house with a garden if that's what they want

[pingodolcepo]

Daily mail outrage that some of the residents are asking for a 3-bed house with a garden. But honestly, they have been through a living hell that was caused by someone else's very bad choices.

There are plenty of people in London that have a 3 bed council house, why can't these people that have dealt with horrors get one also?

I know someone that got a council house in Highgate in the 80s, was a cabbie with a good wage, bought it when offered and sold it a few years ago for over a million and now lives in a fab place with loads of land and a pool in the south of France. If plenty of normal people got houses why can't these poor residents get one? They won't ever be able to afford to buy it due to the high cost of london houses now.

Harsh, but fair I am afraid

divert people from the housing waiting list is unfair

You seem to apply this "fairness doctrine" in baseless ways.

The list system has nothing to do with it. The residents of Grenfell were housed, they should be rehoused, the costs of that should be met by central government buying up suitable additional properties, with no effect on the local list. The problem of the 10 year wait also needs solving, with a proper programme to build a lot more social housing in every area (probably including new towns for those willing to move to them).

And you CAN run a country in a more compassionate way. The idea that brutality, violence and dispossession are somehow necessary is flat wrong. The idea that property owners have more of a right to the city than those who are renting is also wrong.

You’re not being moved down the list though- these tenants already had homes- those who were private renting should be assessed on the same assessment as anyone else who lost a home due to fire. Those who owned should be in temp until insurance sorts it out and gives them money etc for a new home.

Those who wer council tenants should be rehoused. Once the insurance pays out Kensington and Chelsea will be able to build more housing because that’s what the money is for- is to replace the homes lost in the Grenfell disaster. However insurance may well say they aren’t paying out due to circumstances in which case those who owned will need to bring a law suit to the council.

But Whisky, this is a problem that needs dealing with NOW, not by a long-term change in Government policy.
But can I just check, assuming we are living in the now not in the future, you are saying that people who were living illegally should take priority over those who have been legally waiting a long time?
It's an interesting approach.

The housing list has been closed since the fire, to all but Grenfell ex residents, but we can click on the link to look at pics of the 3 blocks on offer which are Kensington Row, Tavistock Row, and Hortensia Row, they are in Ken High St, Notting hill, and off the Kings Road, newly refurbished most with ensuite bathrooms, they are beautiful, but maybe its because they are in blocks of flats, that the Grenfell residents don't want them, but they're not high rise, it could be years before the list opens again we've been told.

OurMiracle - they already had homes yes, but the point is that some of them had homes they should not have had.
It everyone was assessed in the same way, those who were illegally subletting would end up way down the housing list, as that is where they would be if they were not living illegally.
What I am saying is that group of people - not the ones with legal tenancies - should not be given priority on the housing list.

To be honest, Bobbyjim, assuming the flats have the correct number of bedrooms that the tenants are entitled to, they should be made to move into those flats. They are not high rise, they are within the borough and they are better than most HA flats I would imagine (I am aware that they will not be as opulent as the ones offered for sale). If they refuse, they should move down the list.
Enough is enough now, I think

I'm sure other parts of the country are just as well equipped to deal with PTSD. School, GP and social workers are able to offer continued support.

Ylvamoon except you are wrong, however "sure" you are.

HateSummer - so you're happy for the council to be able to tell you what to do with your own property? What a lovely slippery slope that would be.

The country has profited massively from SDLT on those sales. The developers have made profits and have paid taxes in building them, and their employees have paid taxes in building them. Now you just think the owners should hand them back??

Or do you think the council should have to buy them? As a council tax payer in RBKC, I'd far rather the money went on other things, ta.

Well Cath, fires happen.

The UK is blessed in that it doesn't have to deal with volcanoes and terrible earthquakes. Flooding can be a problem - and is terrible.

But if you are looking at housing, fire is something which should be thought about - a lot. And if you are in the business of housing people, be it a hotel, or social housing, you need to think about it a lot. And to make contingency plans.

I mean we are talking about a building that was getting on in years. For some reason someone decided it would be a good idea to cut costs by wrapping the place in highly flammable material. Sprinklers seem like an obvious choice in a situation like this.

Given all we know, I think a reasonably competent manager should be expected to reasonably foresee this occurrence.

Too, given that, I would think that it would not be unreasonable for management to think about what happens to people if for some reason (fire, asbestos, legionnaire's disease) a large group of residents is displaced.

Because this is what happens when you are left with ad hoc solutions. You end up trying to define "fair".

I just ignored Hatesummer's post tbh, as it was such a gross oversimplification of how to deal with the problem.

so you're happy for the council to be able to tell you what to do with your own property? What a lovely slippery slope that would be.

Property rights are very strong in England and Wales, it is true. They are not, however, absolute. We have been on that slippery slope for a long time.

So where should the displaced people be housed, MakeourFuture?
Should we leave homes empty - even though there are homeless people in need - on the off-chance that there may be a catastrophic event ?
Where should the displaced people of Grenfell be housed??

If the public is deluded enough to vote in red jezza and his acolytes, possibly. No other government would be daft enough to risk rocking the boat of investment and crashing the property market by putting that sort of "use it or lose it" law in place. It would make the UK so uninvestable.

It might not be fluffy or even humane, but it's commercial - that's the way western society works. If you have money, you can buy something. Nobody is going to take it off you to house others with less.

And if they did, there'd be an unfairness of almost equal proportions - you'd get some people who don't work, or who have come here from countries where they get nothing, being given luxury zone 1 accommodation at millions of pounds a pop, whilst others have to break their necks to afford private rents miles away from work.

And I have provided both a solution for the present (central government purchases available homesfor Grenfell residents) and one for the future (change in government policy).

It is not about "priority" because the two cases are different, as people are repeatedly explaining to you.

Good piece on Grenfell here: mondediplo.com/2017/07/06london

So if the government spends money on Zone 1 homes for grenfell residents, what cuts would you support to fund it? Because that's going to be seriously expensive.

Maybe people going to school in wales should have their budgets cut further? Maybe a hospital in Liverpool gets fewer nurses? Maybe UC could be cut a bit further?

Is that link from a self described "left wing anti capitalist" website? Hardly going to be impartial if so.

It's written by Professor Rowland Atkinson, Chair in Inclusive Society at Sheffield University, who has researched the London property market and the alpha wealthy for many years.

rebecca - I wouldn't cut anything. I'd introduce a mansion tax.

So if the government spends money on Zone 1 homes for grenfell residents, what cuts would you support to fund it?

This is a false dichotomy.

There is no way to foresee every eventuality, but planning and risk assessment is imperative.

Planning and risk assessment based on reality or based on utopia, MakeourFuture?

Whisky, can you explain to me how exactly a mansion tax would help rehome people this week?

It might not be fluffy or even humane, but it's commercial - that's the way western society works. If you have money, you can buy something. Nobody is going to take it off you to house others with less.

This talk of free markets....

There is nothing at all free market about the housing market. You don't hold bank rate at 0% for a decade in a free market.

Following the crash, if government had not intervened, we would be in a very different world right now.

Given this, if we allow intervention for bankers, why can't we intervene for poor folks caught up in a tragedy?

I’d get Kennington & Chelsea council to pay,
They could buy all the victims a house and have still have change left over,

They then may learn a lesson to not be so tight in the future,
They would make the money back in rent eventually which they could put back in the bank to look at

Planning and risk assessment based on reality or based on utopia

The kind of reality where if you have an older building, wrapped in flammable material, with no sprinklers, at some point you say, "Wait a minute....what if it catches fire?"