Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The "Usual Objectors"
On another thread about a potential housing development, a HoL contributor wrote "..are all the usual objectors to large scale developments still going to be complaining...".
I didn't want to respond on that thread and so hijack it from the original poster's purpose, but given that I have been recently involved in objecting to a local development, I thought I'd offer a short response.
I'm not sure if I'm the right person to make a response however, since I've only ever objected to a housing development once that I can remember. But saying this also makes my point. I'm not aware that there is a set of usual objectors in Harringay. I understand why people might sprinkle this throw-away phrase into a quickly tapped out comment on a forum, but as far as I understand it is made without foundation locally.
The reason I made the objection about the Hampden Road development is not because it is my predisposition so to do, nor that I am against housing development. I objected on the grounds of its scale, the very grounds on which Haringey's building height regs, as they apply to Harringay, the development is apparently rendered unpermissable.
I've written previously about the casual and antagonistic throwaway use of the phrase 'nimby'. Were there but world enough and time I might be similarly drawn to write on the throwaway use of 'the usual suspects' (for which I'd have wag my finger at myself) and 'the usual objectors'. For now I'll say just this. There are those in any neighbourhood who spend immense amounts of time looking after our interests (and I don't mean blokes that run websites). In most cases we all owe them a tremendous amount of gratitude for the positive influence they have. Sometimes, they overstep the mark and need to be called to account. In these instances let us make our calls with understanding and respect, and not with dismissive side-swipes.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
I love immigration, to a point, that point is when the services can't be maintained to adaqaute levels. Given the planing laws ( and council budgets ) as they stand, we have an inherent problem.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Which part of 'immigrants contribute more than ten times what they receive' do you not understand?
Were there less immigration, we'd have less money to spend on public services.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
If an immigrant is on minimum wage and being supported by the state in London with regards to their housing costs then that formula is mathematically correct but the actual numbers are what people get miffed about. 30 hours at minimum wage in a restaurant would be 30x£7.20 = £210.60 a week. If they get £21 a week (it's probably more) in housing benefit then yes the maths work but I hope you can see the problem here.
-
-
I'm sorry John, I don't understand - please help!
Not easy to say who earns what but even if we accepted the assumptions laced into your example, you're not arguing that the housing benefit system unfairly advantages poor immigrants at our expense, are you?
Stories of low pay in this context tend to unfairly characterise immigrants. What proportion of immigrants earn little in Haringey? In Harringay?
You have experience in the banking sector, right? London is reputed to be France's sixth largest city. Estimates vary maybe it's 300,000 - je ne sais pas. Many French immigrants work in your sector doing everything from running banks to cleaning them.
Taken collectively, what multiple of their 'costs' do they pay in tax alone? How many services do they buy that permit those services to be offered to UK nationals? What contribution do they make supporting and enhancing our culture that makes it more popular than it otherwise would be? What is the value of the beneficial effect their culture brings us. What value can we place on things that immigrants bring us such as the numbering system we use today?
If the French in London only paid ten times the collective cost that we incur from hosting them, would that be OK or must all immigrant peoples pay us different multiples of the cost?
-
-
As I said, immigration is great, to a point. It's one of only ways we can get out of this economic hole. However if you dilute public services and push house prices and rent beyond reach of lots of people, local people don't see the benefit. All that happens in reality is the government debt just goes up slightly less fast whilst waiting list for a council house gets longer.
To make it worse, if you do this too much, you get things like Brexit. -
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
Immigrants are not the problem, the problem is that the government was happy to pocket the wealth that the immigrants brought without using it to provide the services in terms of health, education and housing.
This government and previous Tory governments are happy to use immigration as an excuse for under investing in all of our services, they do not want a healthy well funded NHS, they do not want a flourishing state education service and they actively want housing left to the vagaries of the market.
-
-
It's quite possible there are "usual objectors", but who cares? You are allowed to object to whatever you want, whether the council will listen or not does not come down to "you're a nimby". If it's a valid complaint then it's valid, and if it's not the council will justify their decision - and there are methods of appeal. If I don't agree with someones campaign (though I do agree with your example Hugh) then I can write to the council about my support.
I'm sure the council receives a lot of frivolous complaints (example the new Turkish restaurant planning application has a complaint "I'd rather have a different cuisine"), but I doubt that means they don't take in the genuine ones.
I'm happy that this website is a place to bring attention to peoples campaigns no matter if it's trivial - I don't have to read them if I don't like them.
-
-
The next generation cares, they can't afford to rent or buy because planning permission is ruthlessly advantageous to the older generation.
-
-
Of course the next generation cares. They can't afford to rent or buy because of decades of government policy on housing.
Following the war there was a much worse crisis in housing however there was also a willingness to build houses fast, it was government policy.
In the 80s it became government policy to sell off council houses, about 1.5 million have since been sold off, however it was government policy that local councils were forbiden to spend any money on building new ones, this was to be left to the free market. This government has a policy of neo-liberalism, it is happy with the housing crisis.
What we need is a government with a policy to build the houses that people need.
-
-
I agree with everything you write :)
There has been huge cross-party agreement that high house prices are bad throughout my adult life but no significant action - a failure of politics.
My latest hope is to see Labour, under JC, build lots more Council houses but also introduce a 'from now on' Land Value Tax - that would help everyone eventually.
-
-
He won't be able to do that because he won't win a general election, In fact he'll probably lose it so bad the Tories will get a romping new majority.
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-support...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
