No doubt people on here will be happy but I’ve no doubt we will end up with a worse council without the vision or ability to lead significant change. Just as we are now seeing with those brexiteers who wanted Britain out of the EU without a vision for what this may actually look like I expect we will see the same for Haringey as far as development and housing goes.
Thank you for the interesting link to Joe Goldberg's thread. It's a useful argument he presents.
What is less useful is your misrepresentation of the numbers he offers.
In the thread, he does not suggest 6500 'council homes'. Rather, he states that
Even if we were to swallow the meaningless and obfuscatory definitions of 'council homes' or 'affordable/discounted product' , the numbers are derisory. And with the significant risk that the numbers would be lower and the Council would remain unable to extract itself from the longterm contract (except at extremely high cost).
100 homes per annum. Homes they call them. 1 bed flats are 'homes'. 3 bed flats are 'homes'. A bike shed is probably a 'home'.
One wonders why Joe Goldberg didn't make his case during the many hours in which he sat fiddling on his phone in Council meetings.
While it appears that the Council's slow draw on the bong of HDV is at an end, I suspect that those who will take the positions of power in Council will be even more susceptible to the charms and wiles of our corporate foe.
I have no faith that a collective of careerist local politicians, union tardigrades and professional placard designers will lead effectively in addressing the issues we face.
I am glad that the HDV has been stopped. What lies ahead is very troubling, however.
and I'm copyrighting "union tardigrades"
Agreed, I hadn't considered the ramifications for right to buy until I read his thread.
That scheme has been less regulated and more harmful than the national lottery.
I'm not against public/private JVs (could you imagine the waste and inefficiencies of a publicly-run home builder?). The HDV took things to an illogical and unnecessary extreme, however.
If you can keep it polite with Billy (I play cricket with him sometimes) then I'll help you out. If there was a net increase in social housing then it would be all over their twitter feeds, something to the effect of "THERE WILL BE A NET INCREASE IN SOCIAL HOUSING UNDER THE HDV", but there isn't. There are long streams of figures and mumblings about "affordable".
So, THERE WILL BE A NET LOSS OF SOCIAL HOUSING UNDER THE HDV.
Figures speak for themselves. 1900 affordable homes, replacing ~1000 by the latest reckoning?
that usually depends on who’s counting. I don’t think any homes are affordable these days.
But.... surely the elections are about running a metropolitan borough not solely about housing.
schools, job creation, business investment, training, clean streets, public health, youth services, planning , parks etc etc etc may not be as sexy as housing and the ‘vehicle that now should not be named’ but I want to know what Haringey Labour are going to be up to.
Whenever they give a percentage for "affordable" housing, immediately turn it around and you'll understand the state of things. e.g. 25% affordable means 75% UNAFFORDABLE! Not for the likes of you matey. More for investors in China and Dubai.
"Affordable Housing" includes a wide range of housing.
There are three types of affordable housing - social rented (council rent levels), discount market rent and discounted purchase. Most developments offer only the last two types. The issue then becomes focussed on the level of discount provided.
The BBC's working definition is:
The government's definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.
That is clearly a very broad range.
When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.
The government definition of affordable housing states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels.
That is clearly a very broad range. So the issue then focuses on the discount level.
It's not unusual to see one offer made at the planning stage only to see that offer revised by a developer with claims of low profitability.
A la Battersea power station,
I think I read that all affordable housing has been pulled as its no longer profita/viable (might be wrong about the extent of it though, my rotting grey matter so often fails)
or was it they were just going to pay the council off with a meager bri/payment
Indeed. And public/private partnerships have form on this. The redevelopment of the Heygaye estate at Elephant and Castle saw the social housing element shrink again and again after planning permission had been granted and contracts signed because the developer claimed it wasn’t profitable. Heygate was home to 1,194 social-rented flats at the time of its demolition, the but Elephant Park provides just 74 such homes among its 2,500 units. The developer was Lendlease.
Yes, lendlease have had some shockers and as you suggest theyre not the only ones.
If they're allowed to call any of that affordable then I'm allowed to call everything else unaffordable. We are building houses that nobody in London can afford.