Impact of the riots on housing
09/08/2011 12:56 pm
We're trying to get a picture of how housing providers are responding to the riots, and would welcome your input. If you've get any information or views to share, please respond here and we'll try to draw all the feedback we receive together with our own investigations, and messages received through twitter and other sources.
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
Inside Housing staff post
09/08/2011 2:37 pm
How about 200 lashes of the birch for home owners and 100 for those who are tenants? After all such thuggery is the presever of tenants and we need to set an example to all non-tenants!!
09/08/2011 3:51 pm
social landlords are responsible in no small part for tenants taking part in riots. After all they have been useless in protecting their good tenants from antisocial behvaiour. All the millions if not billions wasted on asbo across the country for all these years should have at least produced better behaviour from antisocial tenants. Now the peabody trust is pulling out of one of the estates from fear of violence. But what and how much has the peabody trust done to enforce antisocial behaviour policies in that estate so far and prior to these riots?... Probably nothing. Or they will say a lot - but, by the look of it, it's a lot of ineffective work producing very little. And now the social landlords expect no violence? If they are so naive not to realise that their lack of consistency in antisocial policies has produces very little, then I wonder why are there, but for the salary.
These riots happen because the participants either know they can get away with it or because no one in authority, included social landlords has ever made them and their families understand what is acceptable and what is not.
Inside Housing staff post
09/08/2011 5:10 pm
I think that is a little unfair on Peabody's Pembury estate tenants (and Peabody). One of our team has been down there, and it looks like the extent of the destruction was exaggerated, and where there was damage it was caused by people from outside the estate.
09/08/2011 5:26 pm
Social landlords have an excellent opportunity here (unfortunately) to take advantage of the current situation and demand more powers from Government, in order to stem the gradual tide of anarchy sweeping parts of our nation.
The Government must realise that to tackle the underlying causes of the current riots, affordable landlords must be given greater powers to intervene into the lives of their residents through improved joint communication and enforcement over anti social matters.
Rather than having social adult / child care functions operating within the confines of local government, positive steps must be taken to enable the 'branching out' of these functions, to local housing providers who can work with housing staff to manage their shared case loads which are pro actively revewed on a regular basis and quality assured by a third party.
There have been examples of ALMOs farming in social service based resources to jointly tackle their issues with their respective local authorities. However, more needs to be done on this front by enabling similar strategic partnerships to become more operationally present by way of investment in (human) resources.
10/08/2011 2:12 pm
In the Metro this morning a young lady was quoted as finding it all a bit of a laugh and that the shop keepers deserved the loss because they are rich.
Whilst she is obviously way off with her views, they do indicate at least part of the thinking behind those who took part in the rioting.
Firstly, when you have nothing there can be envy of those you see you have more than you.
Secondly, that if I'm OK then nothing else matters.
This over self-centred world view is a huge barrier to making the change needed so that these riots are not repeated, and I'm sure that the total reasons are further complicated, but just considering this young lady's opinion some 'old-pc' terms come to mind, such as social-inclusion and stakeholding.
Having a value gives a person something to lose. Having something to lose is a break upon extreme behavour. Obviously then giving all people in our society a worth is something we must do. As an immediate step then the demonistation campaign of this government and the gutter press must be reversed. Longer term the equalisation of people's value - a single minimum wage, equality of benefits, equality of access to housing, regardless of age, is crucial. A clear future of worthwhile employment needs to be something all feel that they can achieve, not just an aspiration of the favoured few. Removing the Million youth unemployed into real career progression is then another essential.
The other area that needs to be worked on is harmonisation and communication. That anyone thinks a shopkeeper is 'rich' shows the level of segregation that now exists in our communities. Inclusion rather than exclusion, communication rather than victimisation, enablement rather than pillory would all help repair this ill.
If Housing Associations put themselves forward to fulfil these needs then they will only achieve the perpetuation of the falsehood that it is all the fault of social housing. The best gain that housing can get from this situation is leave resolution to society, of which housing is a part but not the lead member.
10/08/2011 6:11 pm
Chris - has the fact escaped your notice that the Metro is a Daily Mail publication?
The DM would of course want to portray such a ridiculous view so it can rail against it and more specifically use this ignorant view (assuming it is real and not just made up) as some form of typical view
10/08/2011 8:33 pm
True Joe - but the young lady, I believe, offers an insight that the intelligent can perceive. The hope is that if shared that insight may even dawn on the dedicated DM Readers so that they too can see that this problem is their problem too, and if it is not resolved by engagement, enablement, and inclusion then it will not be resolved.
11/08/2011 12:15 pm
Tom, may I formally ask you remove this discussion as it is clearly ill-conceived.
It cannot be the case that a discussion entitled "The Impact of the riots on Housing" can have any credibility whatsoever when it is clearly the Impact of Social Housing on Riots.
The oficial line coming out of government - see www.bovineanalsecretions.gov.uk is that social housing is the root cause and chief perpetrator of these riots
Inside Housing staff post
11/08/2011 2:01 pm
Of course it is, how stupid of me. I'll remove the thread and ban myself from posting any future comments immediately.
13/08/2011 9:35 am
I am still reelign from you printing teh comment by teh chief exec of Metropolitan, that the rioters ae mindless materialistic thiugs.
I rent from another huge landlord. They "involve" less than 0.1% of their tenants in any form of governance or scrutiny. The steady stream of worries we mostly middleaged and retired tenants offer about our tiny, noisy and frequently damp or seriously overcrowded flats are rebuffed and formal complaints are ignored. I was told last year by the chief exec that if I wanted involvement I should go and live in a housing co-op - he's paid, from our rents and service charges, £200,000 a year; the servces we receive are risibly poor and we're treated with strutting conyempt as an organisational norm.
I manage a housing related charity ( and am paid £38,000 pa) and know how to get heard, difficult though it is. I loathe violence, but understand why the timy minority of youngsters resort to it. I'm depressed by incompetent parenting, but know it is not restricted to people who pay for their their housing via rents rather than mortgages.
Certainly, if I were searching for materialistic thugs I'm not sure it would be people on minimum wage I'd be looking at, but those whose fat pockets, pension pots and bank accounts bulge with money taken directly from the poor.
13/08/2011 12:46 pm
Elizabeth Spring: are you renting from a social landlord? With respect, you shouldn't be if you earn £38k a year.
Re. the riots, there are two related issues that on this occasion need to be considered at the same time, yet dealt with differently.
1. The rioters, the looters, the violent need to be found and prosecuted appropriately.
2. The wider social/economic reasons, whether they truly did or didn't lead t riots, need to be addressed.
I'd love the government to re-establish the UK's manufacturing base, and create enough jobs to ensure that every adult in the country has the opportunity to be educated/trained; and earn an honest living for a fair wage, under a proportionate tax regime.
Then everyone would have hope; there would be no reason/excuse to commit crime and/or riot.
Of course some people will still commit crime, because for a small minority of society it's easier and quicker to earn money through illegal activities than doing an honest day's work, no matter how good wages are or how fair the tax system is.
13/08/2011 9:54 pm
Elizabeth Spring, how right you are... Tenants are a mugs game for all and sundry, and their social landlords are the first to abuse them in each and every way... After failing to protect their tenants from thugs antisocial behaviour now they tarnish them calling them thugs... Like the succesive government. First these governments do nothing about gangs for 30 years and then come up with measures to penalize all tenants by making them live in permant fear that any excuse is good enough to take their homes away from them.
If you who are capable enough to work for a charity cannot get complaints through how on earth can tenants who are disabled, elderly, uninformed and isolated can have have a chance?
And as for involment any time I ask to get involved with my social landlord the answer you get is that there are no vacancies - this no vacancies rigmarole goes back 2o years!.. It looks like the only one they want involved are those they fancy... And if we go by salary mine Housing Association is a bigger landlord than yours, becasue the chief executive gets much more money than yours.
14/08/2011 4:22 pm
"If I were searching for materialistic thugs I'm not sure it would be people on minimum wage I'd be looking at, but those whose fat pockets, pension pots and bank accounts bulge with money taken directly from the poor"
More left wing propaganda?
Some facts - 20% of households on lowest incomes are subsidised via redistribution of earnings to the tune of £10k per household. The next 20% are subsidised to the extent of £10.3k per household. The next 20% are subsidised by £4.5k per household. This costs the next 20% £4.8k per household, and the top 20% £20k per household, on average.
There are approximately 26.2m households in the UK, making the average household size 2.29. Based on this, the fact is that redistribution of income from the wealthiest 40% of households costs those households collectively £130bn per year. This £130bn predominantly goes to the poorest 40%.
The idea of the poor having their money stolen from them by the rich, on the basis of evidence that the rich enjoy higher earnings is complete baloney. Each of the top 20% households, who are having £20k redistributed to the poorest 20%, are covering the subsidy of two households - equivalent to 4-5 men, women and children from families on low income - in the form of housing, benefits and welfare, social inclusion and a raft of other (misguided?) attempts by the Government and its friends, to fix the system.
However, the real value offered by high earners is something else - the investment in economic progress. If you don't want to accept my judgement, listen to Milton Friedman, the nobel prize winning economist (up to 2mins 20, then from 3mins 10):
Just as true now, for the UK.
14/08/2011 4:49 pm
Anon 13/08/2011 12:46 pm
Thank you. I'm glad someone has something slightly intelligent to say on this subject.
14/08/2011 9:24 pm
I think to avoid future riots the govenrment should provide good jobs for everyone. By good I mean jobs in which you can afford to buy a home witha 15 year long mortgage. I do not mean a luxury home, but an average home. When people will be able to do so with thier jobs, then you won't see anymore riots...
However as I am slightly skeptical that our governemnt will ever put in pace policies to provide anything like that to its people I am afraid there'll be more unrest to come... Jailing people now for rioting might make the more hysterical section of the nation happy, but it will only spread criminality. It seems that the greatest majority of people do not realise that criminality is expensive and far from making people afraid of the law they will be even more ready to defy it.
15/08/2011 8:32 am
Criminals contained in prisons, or tagged with enforced restrictions on where they can go OR criminals free on the streets. Which one do you think will result in less crime now?
Yes it really is that simple. The complexity comes when attempting to answer this question: What are you going to do to avoid becoming a victim of crime?
15/08/2011 9:19 am
One impact once the evictions kick in is that there will be more housing available for law abiding citizens.