Rant: social engineering and its failings.

[NoelWatson]

Pupp said:

Planning policy generally requires affordable housing to be provided as an integral component of significant new housing developments. 40% of total new units is not untypical and the starting point would be for these to be pepper-potted throughout the site rather than clustered; occasionally a developer will be allowed to pay money rather than make physical provision if there is something particular about the scheme that means AH cannot be accommodated (no, it's not a reason because it's a, 'executive' development)

Why does it need to be done this way?

[Pupp]

Because nimbyism and developer greed would conspire against it being provided any other way

[Pupp]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This is the UK not South Efrika

[rover 623gsi]

el stovey said:

rover 623gsi said:

No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.

For people who can't look after themselves. Not for people who can't be arsed. It's all part of the safety net that encourages people not to get a job and contribute to society.

Not everyone here was given a house or job by their parents. Most people here have had to work hard at school and earn money. This country is creating generations of people who have no concept of working, their parents never had a job and their children won't either. We are simply encouraging it by making life easier for them.

I'm all for assisted housing and supporting people who work. Not just giving people stuff when they could be working and paying rent. Who cares if they can't afford a house near to their parents council house, isn't that an incentive to work harder and be able to afford one?

Giving lazy bds free stuff all the time isn't helping them it's making them worse.

You seem to think that social housing only goes to unemployed people. It doesn't. It goes to people based on their housing need. Some are working. Some are unemployed. Some are retired. etc

[Pupp]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You're assuming all AH is poorly managed and bedevilled with crime/ASB etc. Like so many stereotypes, that's not actually borne out in reality

[thinfourth2]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Is that a kind of cheese?

[Getragdogleg]

Pupp said:

oyster said:

Getragdogleg said:

payner2008 said:

I think that your assumption that everyone who lives on a council estate is a drug taking, property burgling, chav piece of scum is slightly narrow minded.

The fact that your friend had his stuff stolen is still st though.

Ok, one or two might be ok. The estate is known locally for being ver bad though.

The other estates locally are ok, one is actually very nice indeed.

And I base my opinions on events and evidence, no narrow-mindedness here, just observation, local knowledge and reliable information as to council proceedure regarding troubled family relocation.

I have trouble with lazy fking morons claiming money from the state and all the while theiving as well while those who have done ok for themselves and lived good lives doing no harm to others get stiffed.

Hang on. You say there is more than one estate? And yet you claim a few years ago it was all farmland. And presumably the estates all had to get permission to be built and took an age to get through that. And your friend's parents remained there.

Sounds like the people living near Heathrow that complain about aircraft.

Erm, we established that the estate was established 70/80 years ago and that it is nothing to do with the council, so the council does not receive money for placing people there. The current council did not legally exist in the 1930s by the way.

But carry on anyway...

Edited by Pupp on Friday 31st December 10:16

Stop trying trip me up on facts to with an area i live in.

FACT :The Treneere estate was established many yaers ago, it has problems. Families are moved down from inner cities, A local organisation responsible for housing funded by taxes takes these families. It used to be the CC, now its an Association, still taxpayer funded, still staffed with ex CC people.

Fact: The estate In the Original Post has grown in the last 10 years, it has grown in a linear way, the original planning permission was for houses with a small % of social housing and was allowed through despite objections, this original section of estate was quite nice and about 1/3rd of a mile from the established 30s house my friends parents live in on their own land.

Fact, the Roscadghall estate has been expanded, subsequent recent expansions have been to build ALL social housing, planning was objected to in the most vigourous manner, and yet it got built, built on an area that was originally GUARANTEED to be an environmental strip, with a grassed area and no housing, now within 20 feet of the original houses that have been there in seclusion since they were built.

FACT: The crime rate has increased.

Fact: My Mates folks decided enough was enough, had plans drawn up to knock their house down and build a few smaller affordable houses on the land in the same style and design as those on the estate, they rationalised it was the only way they could sell up and move, no-one will buy the house they are in because it is now too expensive for the area, they do not want to stay put. Their plans were refused, I have no idea why.

FACT: I am not trying to trick anyone with what I am saying, stop trying to catch me out and make out like i am some kind of cold hearted "throw them out on the streets" bd.

This sytem of giving people something for nothing does not work. there is no pride in sitting on your ass all day.

[cymtriks]

rover 623gsi said:

If housing was left to the private sector to provide we would have millions of people homeless and starving. Social housing was not designed as a last resort - it is an alternative housing model which has over the years provided decent living accomodation of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you'd like to see the return of Victorian slums?

No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.

There is no evidence that "millions" would starve, houses don't come with free food.

There is no evidence that "millions" would be homeless, in fact you could argue that massive supply of social housing artificially supports high house prices by providing a state sponsored minimum level of cost. If all council homes were privatised tomorrow where do you think the new landlords would find their tennants? Where do you think live in buyers for these homes would come from? In the vast majority of cases the same people would end up living in the same buildings.

There is no evidence that "victorian slums" would appear if the majority of the market was privatised. However there is evidence in every large town that the state actively supports the modern equivalent.

[thinfourth2]

rover 623gsi said:

If housing was left to the private sector to provide we would have millions of people homeless and starving. Social housing was not designed as a last resort - it is an alternative housing model which has over the years provided decent living accomodation of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you'd like to see the return of Victorian slums?

No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.

100% pure bull

if housing was left to the private sector i can guarantee that many companies would pop up cheap housing those that can pay if the first company sets it prices too high then another company will undercut them.

[Getragdogleg]

"a return to the victorian slums"

So introduce an extreme argument saying that if we did not have these happy utopian areas of social housing we could face a return to the days of thick smog, little bedraggled match girls and the ripper.

Awesome argument, I like your style.

[anonymous-user]

rover 623gsi said:

el stovey said:

rover 623gsi said:

No one has a 'right' to live anywhere, but we have a duty to provide enough decent housing for our population.

For people who can't look after themselves. Not for people who can't be arsed. It's all part of the safety net that encourages people not to get a job and contribute to society.

Not everyone here was given a house or job by their parents. Most people here have had to work hard at school and earn money. This country is creating generations of people who have no concept of working, their parents never had a job and their children won't either. We are simply encouraging it by making life easier for them.

I'm all for assisted housing and supporting people who work. Not just giving people stuff when they could be working and paying rent. Who cares if they can't afford a house near to their parents council house, isn't that an incentive to work harder and be able to afford one?

Giving lazy bds free stuff all the time isn't helping them it's making them worse.

You seem to think that social housing only goes to unemployed people. It doesn't. It goes to people based on their housing need. Some are working. Some are unemployed. Some are retired. etc

As I said i'm all for supporting people who can't help themselves not people who can't be bothered or people who are better off not working.

[Zaxxon]

Let them eat cake



Or Rustlers Burgers.......

Edited by Zaxxon on Friday 31st December 10:54

[Pupp]

Getragdogleg said:

Pupp said:

oyster said:

Getragdogleg said:

payner2008 said:

I think that your assumption that everyone who lives on a council estate is a drug taking, property burgling, chav piece of scum is slightly narrow minded.

The fact that your friend had his stuff stolen is still st though.

Ok, one or two might be ok. The estate is known locally for being ver bad though.

The other estates locally are ok, one is actually very nice indeed.

And I base my opinions on events and evidence, no narrow-mindedness here, just observation, local knowledge and reliable information as to council proceedure regarding troubled family relocation.

I have trouble with lazy fking morons claiming money from the state and all the while theiving as well while those who have done ok for themselves and lived good lives doing no harm to others get stiffed.

Hang on. You say there is more than one estate? And yet you claim a few years ago it was all farmland. And presumably the estates all had to get permission to be built and took an age to get through that. And your friend's parents remained there.

Sounds like the people living near Heathrow that complain about aircraft.

Erm, we established that the estate was established 70/80 years ago and that it is nothing to do with the council, so the council does not receive money for placing people there. The current council did not legally exist in the 1930s by the way.

But carry on anyway...

Edited by Pupp on Friday 31st December 10:16

Stop trying trip me up on facts to with an area i live in.

FACT :The Treneere estate was established many yaers ago, it has problems. Families are moved down from inner cities, A local organisation responsible for housing funded by taxes takes these families. It used to be the CC, now its an Association, still taxpayer funded, still staffed with ex CC people.

Fact: The estate In the Original Post has grown in the last 10 years, it has grown in a linear way, the original planning permission was for houses with a small % of social housing and was allowed through despite objections, this original section of estate was quite nice and about 1/3rd of a mile from the established 30s house my friends parents live in on their own land.

Fact, the Roscadghall estate has been expanded, subsequent recent expansions have been to build ALL social housing, planning was objected to in the most vigourous manner, and yet it got built, built on an area that was originally GUARANTEED to be an environmental strip, with a grassed area and no housing, now within 20 feet of the original houses that have been there in seclusion since they were built.

FACT: The crime rate has increased.

Fact: My Mates folks decided enough was enough, had plans drawn up to knock their house down and build a few smaller affordable houses on the land in the same style and design as those on the estate, they rationalised it was the only way they could sell up and move, no-one will buy the house they are in because it is now too expensive for the area, they do not want to stay put. Their plans were refused, I have no idea why.

FACT: I am not trying to trick anyone with what I am saying, stop trying to catch me out and make out like i am some kind of cold hearted "throw them out on the streets" bd.

This sytem of giving people something for nothing does not work. there is no pride in sitting on your ass all day.

I'm not trying to trip you up; you're doing a grand job of that yourself. If all these facts are as you suggest, there will be no difficulty in evidencing them will there? Lets just take one shall we, your assertion that families are somehow relocated from inner city areas to the estate for money. Prove what you're asserting; post up a policy or report originating from the Association that confirms this occurs or has occurred, or post up the statutory provision that enables the Association to act in this way. Local anecdote is not evidence.

It may be that some people have moved from (say) London to Cornwall under Choice Based Lettings (which is the allocations system) but my guess is that an equal number have gone the other way too.

Edited by Pupp on Friday 31st December 11:03

[Getragdogleg]

Pupp said:

I'm not trying to trip you up; you're doing a grand job of that yourself.

Really, you know the area then ?

pupp said:

If all these facts are as you suggest, there will be no difficulty in evidencing them will there? Lets just take one shall we, you're assertion that families are somehow relocated from inner city areas to the estate for money. Prove what you're asserting; post up a policy or report originating from the Association that confirms this occurs or has occurred, or post up the statutory provision that enables the Association to act in this way.

Right, because a policy like that will have lots of paperwork to back it up, a transfer of problem families is not going to create a nice audited money trail is it, fk me what would happen if the locals got proof of what they knew was happening ?

local knowledge is about as good as the proof gets, regional accents and new tricks stand out a mile in a small town like Penzance.

pupp said:

It may be that some people have moved from (say) London to Cornwall under Choice Based Lettings (which is the allocations system) but my guess is that an equal number have gone the other way too.

quite possibly.

What exactly is your point ?

That I am wrong ? that the area I live in has not got a problem with criminals.

That social housing works fine and my mates stuff was not nicked ?

That utopia is all of us living in social housing funded by the state.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 31st December 11:24

[Pupp]

Getragdogleg said:

Really, you know the area then ?

Nope. But I do know a little about local government, planning and housing law.

Getragdogleg said:

Right, because a policy like that will have lots of paperwork to back it up, a transfer of problem families is not going to create a nice audited money trail is it, fk me what would happen if the locals got proof of what they knew was happening ?

local knowledge is about as good as the proof gets, regional accents and new tricks stand out a mile in a small town like Penzance.

So, you're seriously suggesting a statutory based and regulated Registered Provider of social housing is taking money to import problem families (regardless of their wishes?) without any policy backup or audit processes; and you're suggesting this because someone has been heard to speak with an out-of-town accent? Okay...

[Getragdogleg]

Pupp said:

Getragdogleg said:

Really, you know the area then ?

Nope. But I do know a little about local government, planning and housing law.

Getragdogleg said:

Right, because a policy like that will have lots of paperwork to back it up, a transfer of problem families is not going to create a nice audited money trail is it, fk me what would happen if the locals got proof of what they knew was happening ?

local knowledge is about as good as the proof gets, regional accents and new tricks stand out a mile in a small town like Penzance.

So, you're seriously suggesting a statutory based and regulated Registered Provider of social housing is taking money to import problem families (regardless of their wishes?) without any policy backup or audit processes; and you're suggesting this because someone has been heard to speak with an out-of-town accent? Okay...

And we get to the root of it, the basis for the last few pages of post tennis has been that you don't believe that a local authority or a housing association would take a fee to find a place for trouble families.

Where might I look to find the proof ?

[Halb]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Or Ginsters pasty.

[12gauge]

Funny title

social engineering and its failings

You people actually think this is what labour consider 'failings'?

Its what they meant to happen all along.

[Getragdogleg]

12gauge said:

Funny title

social engineering and its failings

You people actually think this is what labour consider 'failings'?

Its what they meant to happen all along.

Careful, you will be asked to provide proof that Labour wanted this all along.

[powerstroke]

Getragdogleg said:

12gauge said:

Funny title

social engineering and its failings

You people actually think this is what labour consider 'failings'?

Its what they meant to happen all along.

Careful, you will be asked to provide proof that Labour wanted this all along.

Anyone who asks for that most likely needs proof it goes dark at night too....