Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Tags for Forum Posts: haringey development vehicle, hdv

Views: 1352

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great article. It's utterly ridiculous how every time the HDV or some other sensible development gets tabled, the individuals opposing it go all ad hominem. 

I take it you either have shares in Lendlease, are a Tory fanbot, or can't be bothered to read the small print...
None of the above. I just enjoy progress.

Things I see as wrong with the HDV:

1. All the boozing and schmoozing as if it was The City in the 90s.

2. The corrupt appointment of Lendlease in a sham tender process where there was a PR company representing two of the three property developers involved.

3. The underhand and sometimes dishonest way that the outcomes have been presented, e.g. making promises on the radio that they're not prepared to put in writing.

4. The 50/50 deal with Lendlease favours them as they can walk away, Haringey cannot walk away from their land.

5. The fact that so many people are to have their homes demolished with no right to return to a new home in the same location is exactly what social cleansing is. Yuck.

Oh and don't forget a councillor working for Terrapin..

He has since seen the light and become an anti-HDV crusader.

The only points which have relevance to the viability of the proposal are 4 and 5. No such thing as immaculate conception in deal making - be it private or public matters or politics. Not familiar with the technicalities of the contract but by 50/50 you seem to imply that there is a profit share in the arrangement, which is somehow bad?Or controlling stake of the final asset? What is it meant by ‘walking away’? Lastly whilst as I have consistently stated before - I empathise with the sentiment of individuals who may be inconvenienced by all this. Im yet to see a factual statement as to exactly whom is at risk of th so called ‘no right to return’ and wha is the probability/ severity of that risk? So far the arguments against have been almost completely fact free.
I would suggest a compulsory purchase of your family home for the sake of a boulevard is a little more than an inconvenience.
CPOs are perfectly legal, serve a very clear purpose in this context, and aren’t unique to the HDV. They have undesirable side effects for which there is legal recourse. And yes, they don’t exactly elicit a positive response from the subject. My question is what makes the HDV CPOs that muc worse???

I do not object to the CPOs and that's not in my 5 points. I object to the decampment of TENANTS without the right to return when the building work is complete.

That’s clear - I was responding to POTUS. And insofar as point 5 is concerned there is nothing but factless speculation. The likely fact that many of the proponents of the HDV don’t follow the approved line or quote the contents of the contract verbatim in interviews doesn’t mean that somehow there is some kind of conspiracy to defraud the tenants. Is it possible that some minor proportion of people this simply won’t work. It’s a risk, and every project across every domain is riddled with risks of all kinds. The trouble is that this supposed ‘social cleansing’ issue, Like any ‘human interest’ issue -is a low probability, high impact event that is not likely to be representative of the final outcome but because of its visceral effect is being used to drum up opposition. Fake news.
I appreciate they are totally legal but to describe it an in inconvenience is a bit Heartless.



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service