Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Haringey Council’s housing and regeneration scrutiny panel took a very important step on Wednesday, by voting to reject the Council Cabinet’s hugely ambitious joint venture company proposal (the Haringey Development Vehicle), to be worth £2 billion, aiming to demolish more than 4,000 homes, redevelop Wood Green town centre, and take ownership of 173 shops and 224 small businesses.

The vote was unanimous, supported by both Labour and Lib Dem Cllrs. 

This is NOT a real regeneration scheme, but a vicious social cleansing plan directed against council housing estate tenants and residents, especially in North Tottenham.

Local people could be driven out of the area by estate demolitions, higher house prices and higher rents.  We must do our best to ensure that this does not happen.

Panel members slammed the lack of information about possible detriments to the Housing Revenue Account arising from the joint venture plan, and the lack of any proper assessment of the risks involved.

The sheer size of the proposed company magnifies the risk factor.

It was suggested that if the company was to go bust, Haringey Council could itself go bust, and would then need to be bailed out by central government.

The meeting was preceded by a vocal demonstration outside the Civic Centre, called by Haringey Labour Momentum at just 48 hours’ notice, and supported by Haringey Defend Council Housing; and there were thirty people in the public gallery to hear Cllrs queue up to denounce the joint venture plan.

If this helps to open up a proper debate on the joint venture idea, then that is both welcome and long overdue. 

Great work all round - but this was only a small step, and there's plenty more to be done!  


Tags for Forum Posts: haringey development vehicle, hdv

Views: 1472

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As I've said in another thread, the council need some way to protect OUR/THEIR properties from the right-to-buy problem. I personally wonder how much money I would pay to live at very low rents in a tenured apartment in central London. i.e. what it's worth for me to have my retirement covered and to also have the right to flats for my kids. That's the system we came from and once there actually became demand for those houses (and now the ones in Zone 3) the system began to look a little "generous".

I think I'd pay about a million pounds for the current rights that our council tenants have.

John, in fact the main "... system we came from" was that anyone who owned or inherited freehold property may have benefited from rising prices. Although some of that benefit might also be illusory. As people often find when they get divorced or when their kids can't find somewhere decent to live. Or when their parent's savings and house vanishes in care charges.
But isn't there also a more fundamental question of what kind of society we prefer to live in?
By the way you can find one measurement of what you'd need to pay for "the current rights council tenants have". Look up Mouse Price.

That's the easy bit of the calculation and as you say, the house price increase is an illusory benefit.

It's to turn Labour voters into Tory voters.

And it's being abused.  Came across a case last week where someone bought their Council flat, they sold it as soon as they were legally allowed to, moved into a private rented flat, blew all the proceeds of the sale, ended up being evicted for non-payment of rent, and then had the audacity to chip up and make a Homelessness Application.

Meanwhile the people they sold the council flat to move away and let the flat out- at private rental rates of course- to tenants on Housing Benefit. Right-to-Buy has helped to cause the extreme escalation in the Housing Benefit bill- and that should concern a Tory government

The welfare state, free medical care, council housing, state pensions etc were put in place for the greater good and now we have a slow erosion of the services for some justifiable reasons and others for short term popularity and ambition. Council housing sell offs and right to buy should not have happened especially at hugely discounted from market rates. The poor minded person who ended up selling his right to buy flat and then going full circle cannot be held entirely to blame. The lion share of the blame has to sit with the authorities that put such policies in place. The idea is long sighted thoughtful authorities/people should implement cross party policies for the greater good but it does not work that way as we know. We must always remember to place the blame at the correct door and not some financial illiterate end user and then later on the same/similar authorities then tell us how wonderful they are with purging the end user problem that they once supported.

What total tosh. The "poor minded person" can indeed be blamed. They weren't financially illiterate they were greedy.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I can't divulge the details of the case but trust me this guy was extremely astute and plain greedy.

I did not say they cannot be blamed." They cannot entirely be blamed". The process and authorities that put these schemes into motion must take the lion share of the blame. How can you call someone financially literate and astute when they blow all the money from the sale, end up in rent arrears and then now seeking to obtain help again from the state. I could say more but yet again another "Antoinette Comment" AC. So anyone with half a brain by AC standards would be a genius.

And a Merry Christmas to you too



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service