Saving Pubs / Housing People

[Tim Lund]

There are 72,457 empty properties in London

Which amounts to one empty house for each 112 Londoners - see here which doesn't seem a lot to me. Against that, according to Shelter, there were

354,389 households, equal to 880,000 people, were on waiting lists in London on 1 April 2009

It makes more sense doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

[leenewham]

You don't think it makes more sense to concentrate on developing empty properties first before knocking down other buildings and building on green spaces?

Really Tim?

[Eagle]

Of course it makes more sense to fill all empty buildings before building more on green spaces.


On a related issue how did we get to a position where each council is responsible to house all people who turn up in their area demanding to be housed.

Many of these people have made themselves homeless in other areas or countries so completely their fault.

I expect I will get lots of abuse here but just wondered why this has happened . Is this the same in Germany , Italy , Poland , Bangladesh or Nigeria ?? Are the local councils there responsible to house all new commers who just turn up from other areas. It is a sort of bottomless commitment on our councils and let us face it that means us , council, tax payers.

[Weeble]

I disagree with pretty much all of your post Tim. There are 72,457 empty properties in London (see links below), over 700,000 across the UK (not including properties above shops). The reason developments like this get bigger is (in my opinion) due to profit, not pressure of housing. Pressure of housing is on councils, not developers. They answer to shareholders.

Start with the empties first.
http://www.emptyhomes.com/
http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/

It makes more sense doesn't it?

Most empty homes are only empty short-term (including cases where the previous occupant is waiting for a buyer for example). Only around 25,000 homes in London have been empty over 6 months. Getting empty homes back into use is important, but it's not easy - given the demand for housing in London if it were simple then they wouldn't be empty in the first place. It takes a lot of time and effort and results aren't guaranteed. Even if we could magic all those long-term empties back into use, 25,000 homes isn't going to meet housing demand in London for long. The idea that we should deal with the empty homes before we go about building new homes is a non-starter because empty homes schemes are simply not going to release large numbers of homes quickly. We need to be building new homes and getting empties back into use at the same time.

[Eagle]

No one seems to be able to answer my simple question about why councils are responsible to house all and sundry. Many of whom have made themselves homeless.

Imagine people going through Ellis Island 100 years ago and the local authority queueing up to offer them apartments in 5th avenue.

[Suzee]

It's called compassion Eagle. We live in a civilised society where we help those less fortunate than ourselves. Do you really believe all these people make themselves intentionally homeless?
Council housing is just another form of housing which the occupants pay for if able to or with state help such as housing benefit if not.
I'd like to think that if my husband and I both lost our jobs or one of us became unable to work long term through illness we could get through it. But if things got really bad I would hope the state would be able to help - that is what taxation is for.
Of course abusers of the system should be stopped but I think you will find they are in the minority.
I find your opinions quite uncharitable Eagle.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Suzee
I was simply asking the question.
We need to slice benefit and look at all things again. That is what Canada did. Rather than look for cuts they said all current welfare would cease and then each item looked at again to see if it was justified.

People made themselves homeless refers mainly to people who came from houses oversea and in other parts of the UK. Not to Londoners who have fallen on hard times

You say uncharitable , that is all well and good but we cannot carry on the air budget as it is. It has to be slashed and slashed soon.

[Suzee]

Eagle you asked the question, I answered it.

Re: Canada - can you reference your claim? Do you refer to means testing? Well most UK benefits are means-tested anyway. A basic Google search shows 'welfare' in Canada still exists.

You make me think of Ebeneezer Scrooge and his comment on 'decreasing the surplus population'....

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Suzee]

Eagle... perhaps we should slash the state pension as it takes up nearly half of the total benefits bill.... housing benefit much less

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ?fb=native

[Eagle]

Suzee
You are not living in the real world. The benefits in UK are second highest in EU , which in itself are highest in the world.
We have to compete in this world market to survive.

Of course Pensions like all other items should be looked into. Big difference one only gets a state pension if you have worked and contributed for 30 plus years. Until quite recently was 45 years.
This is basically a benefit one contributes to , however I accept nothing should be left out in welfare revue.

Of course Canada still has Welfare , did I say they did not.

About 20 years ago they had real budget problem and rather than tinker with the edges they decided to look at all expenditure from scratch. They are now more prosperous and of course with their vast mineral and agricultural resources always going to be better of than us.

Of course the genuine needy should be helped

[simon]

The evidence is that tenants aren't coming forward.

That is so lame Tim.

Lame indeed, in the same way that saying the solution to excessive housing costs is more supply. In other words, the blindinly obvious.

Does anyone know who has or hasn't come in for the pub over the last few years, apart from Antic? And does anyone really know why Antic pulled out? Last year Chris Best said Purelake had found a tennant; was she misinformed or was it true and the operator pulled out for some reason?
Yes the rent is an issue, but that could be negotiated. The main reason why no tenants have come forward is surely that the building is an empty shell with no sign of it ever being finished.
This looks to me like a classic case of managed decline by the developers.

Why on earth would they want to 'manage decline'? Are Purelake inherently evil, or are they just normal profit maximisers? If the latter, and a pub would be profitable, are they just not very good capitalists?

Let's agree that we want a decent pub. What I wrote in the "Hound that was Grey" thread was that a pay-off from Purelake could be negotitated which would fund the development of a New Greyhound, with space for more of the original features than now looks possible. This was not to let developers off the hook, but to negotiate a better solution all round.

Purelake would no doubt like to knock it down and build more flats, not to aliveate any housing crisis, but to make more money. And you agree with them.

I have no objections to business making profits from delivering goods and services people want. People want places to live. If there were fewer restrictions on the height of developments, there would be fewer sofa surfers, and fewer pubs knocked down. Which side are you on in this?

Purelake need to be kept to the obligations they undertook when they gained permission and if that means they take a financial hit, then tough.

And let that financial hit finance the sort of pub we want.

I'm sorry Tim but it is not "blindingly obvious" that no tennants have come forward because a pub on the site wil be unviable. Apart from that fact that we don't know if any tennants have come forward, a lack of interest may well reflect the current state of the pub, the lack of any sign that it will be rebuilt and the price. As I said, a pub has been viable there for about 250 years and at least two operators have expressed an interest in the past.

Purelake could want to manage decline so that people get so fed up with just a derelict building they allow them knock it down. In that respect they would be efficient capitalists, maximising value. Only if that failed and they were forced to take a hit would they be not very good capitalists.

The main reason why so many people want the Greyhound to be where it is is because that's where it always was and where it operated successfully for so long. No doubt attitudes would be different if a series of operators had failed, like at the Two Halves. Would you be in favour negotiating that Purelake do a bit of work on the Two Halves site, rename it the Greyhound and market it in return for allowing them to demolish the current Greyhound building? They would no doubt bite your hand off.

I agree we want a decent pub. For me the Greyhound was a decent pub before developers got hold of the site and closed the pub down. Let them have their flats but permission was granted on the condition that the pub stayed. And that was not negotiable then and shouldn't be now.

[leenewham]

^^

Agree Simon, 100%.

[Tim Lund]

Most empty homes are only empty short-term (including cases where the previous occupant is waiting for a buyer for example). Only around 25,000 homes in London have been empty over 6 months. Getting empty homes back into use is important, but it's not easy - given the demand for housing in London if it were simple then they wouldn't be empty in the first place. It takes a lot of time and effort and results aren't guaranteed. Even if we could magic all those long-term empties back into use, 25,000 homes isn't going to meet housing demand in London for long. The idea that we should deal with the empty homes before we go about building new homes is a non-starter because empty homes schemes are simply not going to release large numbers of homes quickly. We need to be building new homes and getting empties back into use at the same time.

Thanks Weeble. It's no fun feeling in a minority of one

[Tim Lund]

Would you be in favour negotiating that Purelake do a bit of work on the Two Halves site, rename it the Greyhound and market it in return for allowing them to demolish the current Greyhound building? They would no doubt bite your hand off.

Indeed - so the question is, could enough be screwed out of Purelake to get an outcome which the majority of people in Sydenham would prefer as well?

[leenewham]

Weeble, where did you get the 25,000 number from? I can't find any reference to it online.

Thanks

Lee

[simon]

so the question is, could enough be screwed out of Purelake to get an outcome which the majority of people in Sydenham would prefer as well?

Enough to rebuild the Greyhound at its current location would suffice.

[Weeble]

Weeble, where did you get the 25,000 number from? I can't find any reference to it online.

Thanks

Lee

Lee it is right there on the links you highlighted in your own post! 24,226 to be precise!

Pure numbers also do nothing to tell us what type of homes they are and whether they're the type we need. One of the big problems in London is a lack of sufficient, decent, affordable family-sized homes. 1 in 4 children in London are growing up in overcrowded conditions. Things like getting flats over shops into use is all good and well but are they actually the type of accomodation we need? Can the homes that are currently empty be economically brought up to modern living standards?

I'm all for getting empty homes into use, but there's a risk that campaigns focused exclusively on empty homes make it appear to be an alternative to building new homes.

The current mess the housing situation is in is a really knotty problem and I guarantee you that empty homes is nothing like a silver-bullet.

[Tim Lund]

The current mess the housing situation is in is a really knotty problem and I guarantee you that empty homes is nothing like a silver-bullet.

Indeed, but the normal human reaction to such knotty problems is look for silver bullet solutions, and feel justified in thinking no further. My 'solution', which is simply to increase supply, may seem equally simple-mined, but it has overwhelming economic logic behind it. However, I put it forward fully aware of the problems increasing supply will pose - the risks of loss of green space, rushed shoddy design, visual intrusion, negative equity for many current householders as prices become more affordable (with consequent hit to aggregated demand in the economy). On the other hand, there are very significant gains, most immediately for the rising generation of 20 and 30 somethings, and before long a more dynamic economy, rather than one hampered by zombie banks propping up zombie households, and others bailed out by current low interest rates. I do also think there could be other benefits if we can find a good modern 'vernacular' architecture, which will allow the housing supply to be added to and adapted with minimal fuss. It's not as if architects and designers don't think about this - it's one of the ideals of Walter Segal, put into practice in Walter's Way, not far from here.

[Tim Lund]

One Nick Long of SE6 has a letter in the Observer today bringing up again the question of empty homes:

Lucy Rock's article "Generation Rent: why millions are locked out of owning homes" (In Focus) fails to mention the importance of tackling long-term empty property, 80% of which is privately owned. Almost every street or neighbourhood will have a property lying unnecessarily empty.

Concerted efforts have been made by many local authorities to reduce the numbers of long-term empties. However, a little-observed new statutory instrument introduced by government in November now means local authorities have to wait for at least two years, rather than previously only six months, before it can consider taking enforcement action.

An incoming Labour government must include a comprehensive housing act to help tackle our housing crisis – licensing all private landlords, introducing rent controls, along with licensing and regulation of letting agents, a massive programme of social housing and a restoration of the powers local authorities have to tackle those who leave property empty for no good reason.

Nick Long

London SE6

The most sensible part here is the appreciation that a 'massive programme of ... housing is needed', although I think it more realistic, and possibly preferable, that the private sector takes the lead.

Here's an interesting chart from the website 'Inside Housing'



from which it is clear that the private sector has been able to maintain a relatively steady level of construction since the 1960s, while public housing supply pretty well gave up under Mrs Thatcher, and has not recovered since, even though public spending in general increased. There are some interesting fluctuations in private sector construction, with a decline from about 1970 until 1985. It is likely that this is accounted for by changes to rent regulation - detailed at length here on Wikipedia

I think Nick Long's idea of introducing more rent control is fairly barmy. I grew up in a private sector rent controlled housing, and my Dad still lives there, and I have to say, it was great for us. The landlord took its responsibilities for repairing the property reasonably seriously, and was rich enough to take the hit to the value of its property portfolio. But it meant that private sector landlords were not going to rush to build more properties for rent when they might get hit by further such regulations.

As a footnote, a few years back, a development opportunity arose for them to build more houses for sale I'd guess, so increasing the local housing supply, but thanks to a vociferous local campaign, it got stymied. Well, it's all wonderful for the older generation in rent controlled properties like my Dad, and people who have got on the property ladder.

[Eagle]

Just watched a good programme on BB2 about house overbuilding has destroyed Spain. Do we want it to happen here.

Builders are sitting on land . They are not building because people cannot afford to buy. Simple economics.