PDA

View Full Version : Tory's Copying US Gentrification In London


LONDON!
07-15-2009, 07:36 AM
it looks like everything that happens in the states gets mirrored over here eventually

the tories(conservatives like the republicans) are looking to do what there doing to the housing projects in the states, in the borough of hammersmith & fulham. There looking to

1.raise the rents on social housing to private rates
2.bulldoze existing housing estates(projects) and rebuild expensive exclusive flats and not re-house anyone, making people homeless
3.there getting rid of council housing for life except for old people and the disabled

they want to do this in a pilot scheme in the borough of hammersmith & fulham and then roll it out nationwide, they want to gentrify the hood to rid the endz(area) of labour and liberal democrats supporters and the poor, its the same old tory hatred and disdain for the poor, i can't believe there bringing that shit over here, its evil and riduclous, its unfuckinbelievable, this devilish shit has to be stopped, its crazy

taken from www.guardian.co.uk





Stephen Greenhalgh and "decent neighbourhoods"



The plot is thickening rather murkily in the saga of Tory flagship Council Hammersmith and Fulham and its attitude to housing some of its less affluent residents: or, perhaps, not housing them at all in future.

It has concluded in its Draft Local Development Framework that a number of council estates in the borough are "not decent neighbourhoods" and that something radical must be done. I wrote last month about suspicions that the professed desire of Council's leader and Boris ally Stephen Greenhalgh to rescue people from "ghettoes of multiple deprivation" masked a wish to lift them out of Hammersmith and Fulham altogether by demolishing their homes and making little if any provision to house them elsewhere in the borough.

Now Shepherd's Bush MP Andrew Slaughter has released documents obtained under Freedom of Information which track the evolution of a so-called "bulldozer policy" and Greenhalgh's attempts to sell it to the Conservative Party nationally. Greenhlagh leads the Conservative Councils Innovation Unit, which is developing Tory local government policy ideas. The documents show:

- Extracts from a presentation given by Greenhalgh to Eric Pickles, Chairman of the Conservative Party and Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government, and to Grant Shapps, Conservative Shadow Minister for Housing. Greenhalgh proposes that local authorities should provide homes only for those who are unable due to age, infirmity or disability to provide it for themselves. Everyone else should instead be given welfare payments sufficient for them to find their own accommodation in the private sector, for example a room in a shared house.

- Extracts from a presentation Greenhalgh made in January to James O'Shaughnessy, Conservative Party Director of Policy, saying that what is needed is "a solution to pockets of deprivation." His solution in Hammersmith and Fulham appears to be to demolish all or large parts of at least seven housing estates, including the White City, which contains 2,027 housing units, and two other smaller ones nearby; the Ashcroft Square and and Queen Caroline estates in Hammersmith (just over 500 units between them); and the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in the Earls Court area (663 units). It not not clear what would become of the people currently living in these places.

- Possible blurring of the non-political roles of Council officers into performing political functions, and recruitment of political activists to do work normally undertaken by Council officers. For example, invitations to a round table discussion in March about "creating mixed communities in concentrated areas of deprivation" were sent jointly from the Council and right-wing think tank Localis, which hosted the event. The material for discussion was prepared by Council officers.

- A connection with Richard Blakeway, Boris Johnson's housing adviser, who wrote an email responding to a summary of the round table discussion asking "Are you thinking of reconvening this group again? Impressive group," and indicating that City Hall might be able to assist in the development of the policy.

- An awareness of the possible political implications of pressing ahead with the policy, which would involve breaking up communities containing many natural Labour voters. Material prepared by Council officers recognised the risk of being accused of [Shirley] "Porteresque" gerrymandering or social engineering and the need to rebut it.

Stephen Greenhalgh was a member of the Forensic Audit Panel set up by Boris Johnson shortly after his election to examine Greater London Authority and London Development Agency finances. Attacking Hammersmith and Fulham's approach, Andrew Slaughter said, "It's not about looking after the welfare and future of current residents, it's about replacing them with people the Council thinks are more suitable to the area."

Update, 14:06: The Standard too has covered this story, finding a coupling of different angles from mine.

Meanwhile, I've obtained a statement from the Mayor's office about Richard Blakeway's email. I didn't quote that in full above because it seemed fair and sensible to give Blakeway a chance to explain what it was about. Now that I have that explanation it makes sense to publish the email in full:

"V interesting. My big point, which the front bench know, is units not being tied to tenure. This means PPS3 reform. Are you thinking of reconvening this group again? Impressive group. One option might be to use the next stage of the mayor's housing strategy and/or tory green paper, so just before the summer."

Statement from the Mayor's spokesperson:

Richard Blakeway was referring to a whole range of ideas put forward by the group, containing of Chief Executives of Housing Associations, industry experts and councillors from across London. He was not suppporting any specific policy suggested by the group. Since this group met the revised Housing Strategy has been published and contain no proposals suggested in the article.

Thanks for that.

beautifulrock
07-15-2009, 07:53 AM
Have they started building detention camps over there yet? Because we have 600 empty ones over here fully staffed and empty. I wonder what they'll be used for?

LONDON!
07-15-2009, 10:14 AM
detention camps?

what are you talking about?

Tage
07-15-2009, 10:46 AM
3.there getting rid of council housing for life except for old people and the disabled

wow.... really? alot of people(single mums) going to be homeless in my area then.

nice work Tory's, you think people are going to vote for you?

GreenPeace ftw!

set_rule
07-15-2009, 08:01 PM
I thought the U.K. was already under the POLICE STATE with a GAZZILLION cameras like the movie 1984'..... and everything starts with you guys first ....... its the model for U.S. ...

Do your history on it..... ever heard of GROUND RENTS?? not to be confused with PROPERTY TAX which most U.S residents think they are paying .. to your local city gov etc, but actually it goes to banks over there (Rothschild , World Bank etc ....... Gentrification is straight BRIT or an UN devised scheme!!!!! it also comes in the form of eminent domain.... take your pick. America is under BRITISH RULE!!!

LONDON!
07-17-2009, 07:22 AM
I thought the U.K. was already under the POLICE STATE with a GAZZILLION cameras like the movie 1984'..... and everything starts with you guys first ....... its the model for U.S. ...

Do your history on it..... ever heard of GROUND RENTS?? not to be confused with PROPERTY TAX which most U.S residents think they are paying .. to your local city gov etc, but actually it goes to banks over there (Rothschild , World Bank etc ....... Gentrification is straight BRIT or an UN devised scheme!!!!! it also comes in the form of eminent domain.... take your pick. America is under BRITISH RULE!!!


you're dropping some knowledge, yes you are, cctv camera's everywhere, trust

break it down

Rollo
07-17-2009, 08:43 AM
it looks like everything that happens in the states gets mirrored over here eventually

the tories(conservatives like the republicans) are looking to do what there doing to the housing projects in the states, in the borough of hammersmith & fulham. There looking to

1.raise the rents on social housing to private rates
2.bulldoze existing housing estates(projects) and rebuild expensive exclusive flats and not re-house anyone, making people homeless
3.there getting rid of council housing for life except for old people and the disabled

they want to do this in a pilot scheme in the borough of hammersmith & fulham and then roll it out nationwide, they want to gentrify the hood to rid the endz(area) of labour and liberal democrats supporters and the poor, its the same old tory hatred and disdain for the poor, i can't believe there bringing that shit over here, its evil and riduclous, its unfuckinbelievable, this devilish shit has to be stopped, its crazy



I wouldn't compare that to what happens here in the states.
The projects we get rid of, need to go.
Take for instance Cabrini Green where they once had 15 stories of trash, people unable to just walk around their building, rival gangs living right next to each other, shooting up everything in sight, the mailmen and police unable to enter....


Also, gentrification here isn't just a government thing, often white yuppies who like urban areas for the cultural charm buy up communties and some land lords just want to make a profit.

Who is anyone to tell them no? They own the fuckin place.
Further, liberals have done absolutely NOTHING, to stop gentrification, because both parties are rich people.

set_rule
07-17-2009, 10:53 PM
Peace... See, it all started here in the states with what is called "WHITE FLIGHT"..
in most U.S. Cities during the second WW ... cities like, lets take MOTOWN , PITTSBURGH , BALTIMORE for example ...where the manufacturing jobs were the backbone of its economy ...had an population that was on par with the so-called major Cities with a million or more people directly within the city ...... As far as the other major U.S. cities go, i will get back to them later..

Beginning in the early 20th Century, Blacks from the rural South, many with sharecropping backgrounds, began moving north in great numbers. MOTOWN , PITTSBURGH , and BALTIMORE became major destinations for southern blacks fleeing poverty and Jim Crow, seeking jobs and a better place to raise their children.

Northern migration transformed the makeup of the population. Prior to 1900, predominantly African-American neighborhoods did not exist in these cities: black residents were spread out throughout these cities, and no single ward was more than one-third black.Between 1950 and 1970, MOTOWN , PITTSBURGH , and BALTIMORE'S African-American population almost doubled, while whites moved away from the City.


Early on, black neighborhoods were largely confined to the downtown areas,but as more people moved in, these neighborhoods expanded into previously white neighborhoods. Middle-class whites reacted to these changes with uncertainty and alarm.

Urban developers preyed on racial anxieties in order to maximize their profits from housing sales. In areas close to expanding black neighborhoods, real estate agents would float generous offers to the first white residents willing to sell their houses, which they would quickly sell or rent to black tenants. Then, agents would use the presence of black residents to play up fears of racial change among the remaining white residents. Often they would threaten white residents with the prospect of lower property values for those who would be the last to leave.


Life was not easy for black residents. Blacks continued to face discrimination, and were affected by poverty, unemployment, crime, and housing deterioration to a disproportionate degree compared to white residents. While the poverty rate for whites in these Cities was about 10% in 1960, it was roughly three times higher for blacks. MOTOWN,and BALTIMORE'S crime rate went up steadily through the 1960s, and by 1970, BALTIMORE had one of the highest homicide rates in America.

In this decade (60's) — punctuated by the 1968 riots following the assassination of Dr. King — was the turning point. Middle-class whites began moving further and further towards the edges of these Cities, and increasingly began to look outside these cities for an enclave apart from black expansion and social unrest. While in 1950, almost two-thirds of the region’s white populations lived in MOTOWN, and BALTIMORE, only 12.5% lived in these cities by the 90's.


Now ..... to the bigger cities... (gentrification) where its slowly creeping into motion ..CHICAGO, some parts of NYC (BRONX,BROOKLYN,QUEENS,UPTOWN) LOS ANGELES ,D.C. and PHILA.. Exacerbating conditions was the subsequent flight from these Cities.Combine the flight of the black middle class and the rise of the service sector.Increasingly,the black middle class followed whites who had fled to the suburbs before them.Now, after decades of population drain, the characteristic that defines these Cities polarization from the suburbs is not about race, but economic class.


I'll add on to this later..........

LONDON!
07-18-2009, 12:40 PM
I wouldn't compare that to what happens here in the states.
The projects we get rid of, need to go.
Take for instance Cabrini Green where they once had 15 stories of trash, people unable to just walk around their building, rival gangs living right next to each other, shooting up everything in sight, the mailmen and police unable to enter....


Also, gentrification here isn't just a government thing, often white yuppies who like urban areas for the cultural charm buy up communties and some land lords just want to make a profit.

Who is anyone to tell them no? They own the fuckin place.
Further, liberals have done absolutely NOTHING, to stop gentrification, because both parties are rich people.

making people homeless for a profit isn't on to me, it dosen't make sense and is just plain evil and greedy, yes theirs problems in the projects, but bulldozing them and making people homeless ain't the answer, trust me on that

@set rule
thats that science brother, keep schooling them on that shit, you've definetly put me up on things

Rollo
07-18-2009, 01:32 PM
making people homeless for a profit isn't on to me, it dosen't make sense



Sure it does. It's unpleasant but it makes perfect sense lol

yes theirs problems in the projects, but bulldozing them and making people homeless ain't the answer,



Depends on what projects you're talking about, some just use it as a fortress because they know cops wont venture there and they can continue to chop and deal for several grand a week. Even though their rent is only a few hundred a month.

They don't have to live there, they're just taking advantage. But I don't know anything about any project in Europe so... meh lol

Just saying, there are different levels to gentrification, blaming it on conservatives when it's also a progressive/liberal thing to improve the quality of life in some areas is a little one sided bias.

But yeah, governments will try to squeeze any penny out of you they can, especially in times like this.

As for the CCTV thing, cameras are everywhere in public, but I heard they were thinking about using a plan or satelite to guage from the air how much energy each household is using and to fine people for using too much.

When people are asked to ration their consumption, then it's time for a revolution.
I think the EU is going fast down the path into socialism and eventually into communism.
Which is pretty sad when you think about it.

Soon Russia will be more free than the West, I hear Australia is nice, maybe I can go there and kick it with some dingo humpers.

LONDON!
07-19-2009, 06:29 AM
Sure it does. It's unpleasant but it makes perfect sense lol




Depends on what projects you're talking about, some just use it as a fortress because they know cops wont venture there and they can continue to chop and deal for several grand a week. Even though their rent is only a few hundred a month.

They don't have to live there, they're just taking advantage. But I don't know anything about any project in Europe so... meh lol

Just saying, there are different levels to gentrification, blaming it on conservatives when it's also a progressive/liberal thing to improve the quality of life in some areas is a little one sided bias.

But yeah, governments will try to squeeze any penny out of you they can, especially in times like this.

As for the CCTV thing, cameras are everywhere in public, but I heard they were thinking about using a plan or satelite to guage from the air how much energy each household is using and to fine people for using too much.

When people are asked to ration their consumption, then it's time for a revolution.
I think the EU is going fast down the path into socialism and eventually into communism.
Which is pretty sad when you think about it.

Soon Russia will be more free than the West, I hear Australia is nice, maybe I can go there and kick it with some dingo humpers.

making people homeless for profit is evil and will never make sense, we're human beings out this mudda focker, not lower specie primitive extra terrestials, simple as

most of western europe is capitalist democracy's mixed wit socialist principles(free healthcare, free schooling and a welfare state you can survive on when you fuck up in high school to get back on your feet), theirs nuthin wrong wit this up all, its basically capitalism wit a human being touch to it

if anything, western europe is moving more towards US 100% capitalism not 100% socialism, which i both disagree wit, 100% capitalism & 100% socialism don't get felt by me, i'm in favour of capitalist democracy's mixed wit socialist principles like i've mentioned

Olive Oil Goombah
07-19-2009, 08:52 AM
whats going to happen that has already happened in many inner ring suburbs around the country is that apartment complexes are turning section 8, so you got alot of poorer people able to move to the suburbs.

So whats the difference between that and whites buying up ghetto ass neighborhoods and turning them into 'trendy' spots?

LONDON!
07-19-2009, 09:20 AM
whats going to happen that has already happened in many inner ring suburbs around the country is that apartment complexes are turning section 8, so you got alot of poorer people able to move to the suburbs.

So whats the difference between that and whites buying up ghetto ass neighborhoods and turning them into 'trendy' spots?

i've got a problem wit housing projects being bulldoze and not rebuilt or rebuilt but wit expensive exclusive flats only and the people that used to live there all there life having no place to go, thats my problem, for no other reason than for profit, it ain't on

but if there making inner ring suburbs cheaper for people to move into, then i don't have a problem wit that neither

Olive Oil Goombah
07-19-2009, 03:58 PM
Why...rental property ownders do no go section 8 because they want to help poor people. They do it cuz its guaranteed rent money.

Its done for the same reasons as gentrification.

Housing projects will always come and go.

Do you think that NEW YORK CITY should have never bulldozed all of the old tenements back in the day???

Its like your mad at people increasing property value.

Well I dont feel bad if there is section 8 housing now available in suburbs because its like a free pass to a nicer city and better education.

so what the fuck are you really griping about?

LONDON!
07-20-2009, 09:10 AM
Why...rental property ownders do no go section 8 because they want to help poor people. They do it cuz its guaranteed rent money.

Its done for the same reasons as gentrification.

Housing projects will always come and go.

Do you think that NEW YORK CITY should have never bulldozed all of the old tenements back in the day???

Its like your mad at people increasing property value.

Well I dont feel bad if there is section 8 housing now available in suburbs because its like a free pass to a nicer city and better education.

so what the fuck are you really griping about?

yes i agree those old tenements should have been bulldoze and the inhabitants rehoused

i don't have a problem wit bulldozing projects, my thing is that they should only be bulldoze if they are gonna be rebuilt a lot better and the former inhabitants rehoused in appropiate accomadation or in the new project, thats my gripe