The future of Wood Green: details of staffed sessions and workshop

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on March 3, 2016 at 19:16

There is a contact email address to book a place at the public workshop. Follow the link below.
http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/have-your-say-on-the-fu...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt on March 4, 2016 at 11:56

What, blowing up the whole of Shopping City? Surely not. Or just part it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 4, 2016 at 11:58

And what of the people who live above Shopping City? What will be done to them while they "re-develop"? Or was that not mentioned?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 5, 2016 at 8:33

No such thing. No one gets a council flat for life any more. And council tenants pay rent. They are "subsidised" by no one. I'm disappointed in you FPR. I thought you were better informed than that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 5, 2016 at 9:15

And are council properties being built in the new development? Or will they be "affordable" housing and not available to council tenants as in other developments? If not, do we know if there are suitable properties for them in Haringey - this seems unlikely as there is a v large waiting list- so where will they be offered places? If outside the borough, will they be treated as new tenants and so lose security of tenure under the new rules? What will leaseholders be offered for their flats? Will it be enough to cover a property in the new development? (Usually, the answer is no but maybe Haringey will do the right thing?). As the development will be done privately, the simple questions remain. What housing will be built there? Who will it be for? What happens to current residents? How much will it cost to buy/rent a property there? Who collects the rent?
I'm going to be popping along next week so I can ask these questions myself so don't feel the need to answer any of this. But bear in mind that so far redevelopment of areas where poorer residents live has meant a lot of displacement and misery for communities. And it's been Labour councils who've led the way doing this. I hope you're right FPR that everyone will be housed in the new Wood Green. Let's ask if this will be the case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on March 5, 2016 at 9:43

"A clever political party would just build one council house for every family". Ah, but where's the profit in that?
Yes, the cost of social housing is paid from rent but over a longer term than in the private sector. Typically 30-40 years. That is unless a property is taken out of the social rented sector under the Right to Buy which subsidises home ownership.
The reason that councils no longer build social housing is that they are prohibited from doing so. Housing associations and other social landlords were supposed to fill that gap but as right to buy proposals extend to them they will be in the same position councils are now; huge demand but dwindling stock to meet it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 5, 2016 at 10:09

And the reason is?

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on March 5, 2016 at 10:25

Sadly FPR, the last Labour government continued with the mantra adopted during the 80s
Home ownership = good
Social housing = bad
Owen Jones' book "Chavs" has a good analysis of this attitude if you're looking for some rather depressing reading over the weekend.

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 5, 2016 at 9:59

Also councils are not permitted to make a profit from renting housing by law ( set by a Conservative government in the 1950s during the heyday of council house building by all parties) - rents are set to maintain properties and pay for their initial cost. As Michael says this is done within 30 odd years and then after that rent becomes a revenue stream from properties to maintain the estate. So, council rents are in fact what a normal rent would look like once you take profit out of the equation. What most people consider normal or market rent is in fact the profit that is taken by all those who live off the private rented sector. Moreover, rent in the private sector is more likely to be heavily subsidised by the tax payer through housing benefit , which of course goes to a landlord, for whom property is an asset on which they must realise a substantial profit in order to make it worth their while. Often, at the lower end, this profit is further increased by not maintaining the housing stock to a reasonable level - they are not even required by law to maintain a house fit for human habitation.

So what you mistake for subsidy is, in fact, how much it actually costs to build and maintain a home. What you believe is the normal or market rent is, in truth, largely profit. These people i.e landlords are actually the ones that are frequently heavily subsidised by the state through HB, (until recently) substantial tax breaks and other grants.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on March 4, 2016 at 12:01

Why? What's wrong with the shopping centre ? What is going to be better than what we have now?

It's not going to affect me much since the Council want to stop Wood Green Outer residents parking in the Wood Green Inner zone. I won't be going to Shopping City much in future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt on March 4, 2016 at 12:51

Dump the car John and take one of those 2 wheeled trolleys that now seem to come in updated designs & colours, probably including a deserning gentlemans version just for you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on March 4, 2016 at 20:58

Thanks for the compliment Matt. Unfortunately I can't walk more that 200 yards these days without pain. I don't think dragging a shopper would help

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page