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.

@quizqueen

Everyone who thinks it's okay to let others use somewhere that someone else pays for the privilege of using then, please, feel free to put a sign in your own private garden inviting everyone to come and share it.

Everyone who thinks its ok to have somewhere for some of the kids in a block to play, that doesn't let other kids in the block play in,just because their parents are poor, is a bit of wanker.

They won’t be paying service charge and ground rent.

these things usually have WAY more exclusive, bloody expensive apartments than social housing (which they reduce as much as possible) and it it isn'T too much to think that an extra couple of quid of the fees the rich bods pay to live there went towards the very tiny extra cost of letting a few urchins play with their betters, is it?

I think some folks haven’t read the article. There is a 200 pounds a month service charge. You can’t say well these people have to pay it and those people don’t. A bit like you don’t say well I paid for my garden but everyone who lives in flats nearby is entitled to use it, because they can’t afford one.

It’s reasonable. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t get to use it.

It's social apartheid and bloody disgusting.

How would you explain that your child can't play out in the grounds with a friend from the same school, living in the same block, but whose parents were owner-occupiers? Would you tell them it was because you were too poor to buy your flat or what?

@quizqueen

Everyone who thinks it's okay to let others use somewhere that someone else pays for the privilege of using then, please, feel free to put a sign in your own private garden inviting everyone to come and share it.

We have a park in town. The costs of maintaining it are met solely by the residents of the town and there is a £70 surcharge on our council tax bill called "special expenses" for the park.

According to you, the park should only be for those who live in the town and pay council tax, not for the people who come here to work and use the park as a shortcut between the station and County Hall, the kids who come to college from the surrounding villages, the staff of the nearby health centre (unless they live in town too), the people who come here to shop and fancy somewhere nice to sit and eat a sandwich or the tourists who come by the coachload.

@Bluntness100

I think some folks haven’t read the article. There is a 200 pounds a month service charge. You can’t say well these people have to pay it and those people don’t. A bit like you don’t say well I paid for my garden but everyone who lives in flats nearby is entitled to use it, because they can’t afford one.

But they have said that @Bluntness100. All the kids are now using the play area.

The number of people who think this is ok beggars belief and you really are a bunch of entitled and ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The fundamental problem is that social housing should not exist as a separate thing. The whole development should exist as a private development with the same rights for all residents. If we think we should subsidise some people to live there, we should pay their private rents via housing benefit/allowance. If our socialist impulses make us want the state or a housing association to be the landlord, they can buy the development at market prices, but should still let all flats at market prices. (It's the job of housing benefit/allowance, not landlords, to subsidise housing costs.)