Friday, 18 April 2014

F451's posts

  • Posted in: Right to buy home

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 8:46 pm

    Speak directly to the regeneration lead - the council can tell you who this is.

    Ordinarily, if your home is in the way of the regeneration, you will be offered a financial settlement to leave. This actually may prove to be better than what you may achieve through a normal private sale, but do not get confused by 'market value'. If you home is to be demolished then it has little 'market value'.

    You may need to find another home on the open market though.

    Do check because estate regenerations do not always entail complete demolition. For instance, a major regeneration I was involved in left 60% of homes where they were. During the regeneration property values fell by up to a third, however after regeneration property values regained that loss and then added a third. This is not exceptional when you consider that often regeneration removes other blighting factors that may have depressed the price previously.

    In another regeneration, no properties were bought back as the work was to remodel the homes. In such a case the owner occupiers gain the benefit of the work, and sometimes at near zero cost on the basis that it is cheaper, for instance, to add pitched rooves to a terrace rather than miss one out.

    These are very brief scenarios with the intention to give you some reassurance, hopefully. Another instance is where owners gain a discounted purchase of newbuilds as part of the regeneration.

    The main point is to speak to those leading the proposals and find out what is exactly happening, what it means to you, and what options you may have.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 5:55 pm

    Does the MP explain how paying higher amounts of LHA to private landlords through restriciting the availability of cheaper social housing through Right to Buy (even if it is replaced then it will be at 80%MR so for higher HB) can help reduce the deficit when it is increasing total benefit costs, decreasing the amount of disposable income people have and so depleating growth?

    Perhaps he can also explain how scrapping the development and regeneration funds, stalling building, losing jobs and contracts, and resulting in the wiorst building output ever, has addressed the deficit.

    Perhaps the MP would care to explain how cuts for the poorest and boosts for the richest does anything to reduce the inequalities that led to the financial crisis - or perhaps paying Millions to advisors on how to encourage the poor to get by on less is justified.

    Oh the fun you must have with the urchin - what a shame the MP is so shy.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 4:01 pm

    Do press your MP on the point that turfing out the existing tenant does not make the home anymore affordable to a family that can not afford to rent in the area. Only rent capping can do that, unless of course people will be offered higher earnings to match housing cost increases in future.

    Who's the MP and can we come and watch?

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 3:01 pm

    I'm reminded by the report elsewhere on the redvelopment at Craylands, Basildon, that Swan have been doing valuable work for many years, and currently. Not only using estate regeneration to target improved environments Swan have used social support and uplift, tying into neighbouring resources and part supporting resources for residents to be advised and to self improve through.

    I hope someone at Swan offers fuller details, but they may not connect the two as obviously this item is looking at the post riot scenario as if work has not been ongoing.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 2:43 pm

    I'm sure some posters will revel in seeing middle class families in line at the soup kitchens and having downsized into shared rooms as a result of the cuts in public sector jobs and he failure of the private sector to grow.

    I'm sure that they will equally be pleased that the old poor and new poor are being treated with equal indiffference under the American system, but will reassure themselves that workfare will be better in Britain, its simply the Americans have not implemented it successfully.

    I'm equally convinced that those same posters will completely fail  to realise that within months their lives too could be turned upside down exactly the same way as some of those professionals interviewed on the programme. They too could not have expected the axe to fall on them, and realised to late that the cuts in welfare they supported now meant that they could not eat or heat their homes.

    It would probably be best if these people spent the evening reading the Daily Mail or looking up Conservative Home website rather than have their delusions challenged by the reality of that they support.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 10:27 am

    Working families will face reductions in the LHA and incresing rents. They may also fall foul of the extra room tax, and if under 35 the significant reduction in benefit for that age group.

    Working families who do not have full time work (and lets face it the bulk of jobs growth under the last years of Labour has been carried on under the Tories - low wage short hour retail and fast food outlet jobs) face massive losses under the benefit cuts for tax credits on top of the verious tenant related cuts and additional charges.

    Families on full benefit will be losing through the cap, but working families look set to lose even greater proportions of thier income - unless of course they are fortunate to have secure employment and an above average wage.

    As for the last point mrkfm, you are absolutely correct, but the government refuse to restrict those rents, nor provide affordable social housing as an alternative. Where people unable to afford the Tory rents are meant to live I'm not sure, but the lie from Shapps that forcing out those on benefit is because it is unfair to working people who can not afford to live there as the motivation is exposed by the fact that working people are on benefit, and even the average waged can not afford the city rents.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 3:43 pm

    How does equal taxation and the freedom to earn your worth prevent you from acquiring possesions or bettering yourself Nonny?

    I make no such demands (neither am I calling you anti tenant). Are we reading the same posts?

  • Posted in: Information on damp

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 3:02 pm

    "The proportion of dwellings with damp problems reduced from 13 per cent in 1996 to 7 per cent in 2010. Private rented dwellings were more likely than those in other tenures to experience damp problems"

    You could try the English Housing Survey, CLG Website, of which this is an extract - but in honesty, there is not going to be a single source for the detail that you seek Ms Venter.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 10:57 am

    Nonny 10-2-12 9:10am

    Why not when it can be such fun!

    I do not advocate benefit increases. Indeed I advocate the scrapping of every single benefit, including the many that you get, scrapping all tax allowances and all tax bandings. I advocate the replacement with a flat rate tax on all income and a flat rate premium paid to all citizens. What people earn on top of their premium is up to them, but they will pay the flat rate tax on every pound of it the same as the next person.

    What I also advocate is that the wage paid for the job should reflect the value of the work done. It is ridiculous that a senior executive may lead an organisation to no advancement yet gain maximum reward at the same time as a front-line worker may achieve and exceed all of their targets, generate significant earning yet only receive a portion of that they have generated. Each should receive in proportion to the worth that they add.

    The real flaw in your proposition Nonny is that the greater proportion of those dependent on benefit are earning, are working, yet remain poor. It is not a case of the squeezed middle funding the poor but a case of the poor and the middle funding the rich in ever higher proportions. That is why proportionate shares of wealth has decreased for the bottom 20% and increased for the top 10%.

    A restoration of fairness in pay and taxation would allow the long put off revolution in work that ICT can permit, as well as re-empower the majority who have seen their powers eroded for decades.

    You may argue to kep things as they are Nonny - but is that really what you want.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 09/02/2012 7:04 pm

    Yes nonny - clothing is not essential either - indeed without clothing who needs wardrobes. The savings are endless.

    The Tories are right, all anyone needs is sufficient food upon which to do a days' labour and somewhere to sleep for the 4 hours when not working. A fiver a day is more than enough, if we convert some old commercial units in to dorms and feeding centres for the poor. Then, all the houses that are freed up can be afforded by the middle earners, who will not have to suffer living next door to the poor. Tory Utopia, and only a couple of years away.

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

About My Posts

Here you can see your forum posts, see who has replied and add to the comments.

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters