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.

But the fire was the worst in 100 years MakeOurFuture!
It's a bit unrealistic to say we should keep homes empty to cater for an event that only happens every hundred years

How much money do you pay to RBKC every month, Applebee? Is that your money you're so keen to spend??

Whisky - and what has increasing SDLT done for the housing market?

What do you think a mansion tax would do?

How would you propose to top up to the economy when your tax causes a softening or crash as people invest in other capital cities rather than London?

Not necessarily disagreeing with the principle, but it is never as simple as "just increase taxes". It's a delicate balancing act.

Lots, council tax AND rates

We NEED the housing market to soften gently and gradually. Can you not see what will happen to London if prices continue to increase? There will be a crisis in getting workers in to do all the things that are necessary to keep a city running; wages will have to go up to pay them to come in. You simply can't - and shouldn't - have a city for wealthy people only. It's an issue of social justice.

The point about global mobile capital is that it DOESN'T invest in places. Many of the people with the expensive, empty investment properties aren't paying much in the way of tax here. It would actually be helpful to deter that kind of investment and to get people who are actually going to reside in these homes and pay tax in the UK.

and what about the ordinary people with mortgages? You're cheerily sentencing them to negative equity. And then it's a slippery slope. These things never happen slowly and gently!

So you live in RBKC? How much do you pay them every month, and how much do you take out?

It wouldnt be our money Rebeccaslicker it will be the councils social housing surplus

What would you suggest they spend it on?

Yes Rebeccaslicker,
Council tax is about £150 (husband pays this so not sure exactly)
Business rates now £480

Not sure what you mean by how much do I take out

You're cheerily sentencing them to negative equity. And then it's a slippery slope. These things never happen slowly and gently!

It is very tricky, no doubt. Far better to not allow bubbles to form.

There is always a measure of irrationality to markets. People pile in. People scream and run. Some lurk in the back playing both sides. Some influence the system.

But it is safe to say, I think, that if we continue to allow the housing market to be manipulated as it has been (and it has been), that these sorts of ethical dilemmas will become more frequent.

Applebee - how much do you cost the council? Street lights, police etc?

The point is, you're contributing about £6,000 a year and will be costing the council an unspecified amount - but you seem to think you can demand it spends millions on a few people.

You're cheerily sentencing them to negative equity. And then it's a slippery slope. These things never happen slowly and gently!

People are dead who really gives a shit about the prices of our homes? I’m just glad I’ve got one!

I’m not demanding, I honestly thought the law demands that any surplus from social housing should be put back into social housing & that hasn’t been happening

I may be sentencing them to negative equity, but I'm also ensuring their kids can afford a house.The disciplinary cycle of debt has to be broken somewhere.

The point is, you're contributing about £6,000 a year and will be costing the council an unspecified amount - but you seem to think you can demand it spends millions on a few people.

I think that citizens absolutely can demand to be heard when it comes to governmental expenditure.

I don't think, with modern suffrage, that this is tied to some sort of paid/paid out formula.

You simply can't - and shouldn't - have a city for wealthy people only. It's an issue of social justice.

It's not though is it. There is still lots of social housing in London, so London is actually now more likely to be represented by the very rich and those in social housing/on housing benefit, very little middle of the road people can afford to live in (central) London. If you want social justice how about building properties that those on a middle income can afford/are entitled to, to ensure real diversity and a city not just for people at each of the extreme ends of the scale?

If so many rich foreigners buyers would be stopped from buying up land and property in desirable area so (including Manchester) the house situation might be eased a little.

Because brits don't buy in other countries?

It's not 1950 anymore!

It's not so much the very rich ones though, I doubt the limited number of huge mansions owned by Russians, Quataris and other billionaires affect the housing crisis that much.

I'm unhappy with the thousands of more affordable new build flats being sold as second homes/investments to overseas buyers.

True though, Brits do buy abroad and do so in big numbers.

mother - That's exactly what I'm talking about! There needs to be more social housing and more affordable housing.

(Behind all this is a bigger problem: the need to rebalance the UK economy to make London less of a focus, and to build dynamism in the north/Midlands).

I totally agree with Ylvamoon at Tue 12-Dec-17 23:43:51.

Social housing tenants have NO special rights to insist they stay in the same borough or same town. When my parents were renting privately decades ago and the landlord increased the rent, they moved out. So if private tenants have to relocate for whatever reason, why shouldn't social housing tenants as well?

"We need more social housing. We need more housing. Supply is being artificially restricted"

No, makeourfuture - we need more social housing for British born, not the whole world.

"We need more social housing. We need more housing. Supply is being artificially restricted"

No, makeourfuture - we need more social housing for British born, not the whole world.

Sorry, finger slipped. Meant to add this:

"A new home will need to be built every five minutes over the next 25 years just to house future migrants and their families."

Imo no country owes asylum seekers a permanent home. As the name suggests, we owe them temporary accommodation, health checks, and education for the children while they are here during the emergency. Once the civil war back home is over, there is no reason why they cannot return.

Twenty years ago, a Somali family of my acquaintance used to travel back for a visit every year to see the old folks. The entirety of a country is not usually privy to a war, so people can move well away - just as kids from the big cities in England were moved to other parts of this country during WW2.

But as far as housing goes, we should NOT feel a responsibility to provide a standard of housing and living to all incoming, a standard they never even had back home; it's a ludicrous notion. Preferential treatment should be given to legitimate, genuine council tenants from Grenfell. The rest were simply very unlucky to be caught up in the fire, but because they suffered this does not give them the green light for social housing in the future. As another poster said, make an application in the normal way and, if eligible, you will be put on a waiting list.