|
|
 |
| |
We simply need to build cheaper houses
• I WAS glad to see that my letter of November 23 has caused a healthy debate (Housing should be according to need).
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Gary Lachman and A Gallagher and to thank Mary Smith for her support (Wrong to evict Jim after all these years, Dec 7).
Mr Gallagher felt that my letter was subjective and one sided. May I remind him that I stated that there are many people in Camden who are living in overcrowded housing.
Yes, Camden Council did sell many of its properties; this was due to the right to buy policy introduced by the Thatcher government during the 1980s. This enabled tenants to become homeowners which was their rights under the law.
I have no complaints with people exerting their rights. However, it would be wrong to suggest that Camden Council made a huge profit out of this.
They sold the houses far below the market value. Former tenants found themselves living in goldmines and some have gone on to buy further properties and become landlords.
Congratulations to them, they saw an opportunity and went for it. I would not begrudge anyone the right to make money.
However, because of this law there now a lack of affordable rented accommodation. Why is this? Well, councils like Camden did not use the money to build more affordable housing. After all if they had done so, it would only have been bought by people exercising their right to buy.
So we are left with a situation where there is not enough housing and some people are under occupying property. There has to be a fair distribution of this property. I understand that people spend money making their council homes great places to live.
I have done this myself. It is only natural that people do this. No one wants to live in horrible conditions but it must be remembered that this is council housing and unless you buy, it belongs to the council.
I can only speak for myself but if I were a tenant who was under occupying a property and I saw families around me living in overcrowded conditions then I would swap them.
I would do this because I am a socialist and I believe in council housing. No one should have to live in overcrowded conditions. I wish Ami-Jay and Plume all the best. Like many people in Camden you will be moved to an estate.
Lots of people grow up on these estates and do very well in life. I am sure that you will be no different, at least you will have the luxury of not having to use your living room as a bedroom like many families have to in Camden and other parts of London.
JOHN WILLIAMS
Robert Street, NW1
• THE proposed eviction of Plume, Ami-Jay and James is very near the top of my list of immoral acts by Camden Council.
Do the Liberal Democrats not realise they were elected to stop these acts of wickedness and they now have the power to do so?
In this corner of Camden Town, one of the few working class enclaves left in the area, the council has, for at least the last five years, been doing everything possible to break up its solidarity. The eviction of the vital Camden Town Neighbourhood Advice Centre, the handing over of the community centre to a manager who will not let local people use it and now, most fearful of all, its removal of vulnerable, long term residents from their homes.
Let’s hope the new regime will put an end to these acts of mindless cruelty. The council as landlord can behave abominably on occasion – could it be that they want to frighten their remaining vulnerable, poor tenants into accepting their privatisation schemes to get out of their clutches?
It won’t work as people around here believe in collective, social housing and we will fight, not only to prevent this cruel eviction, but also to preserve our community spirit and keep the bullies at bay.
GLORIA LAZENBY
St Martin’s Close, NW1
• IF this quote “worker homes are 78 per cent below recommendation” (Key worker rabbit hutches green light, Dec 7), surely they will just end up being sold on or sublet to short term tenants and visitors to the area whilst the intended key workers (and who can blame them) move elsewhere?
What policies are there to avoid this? Can they only be resold or sublet to other key workers? I doubt it. It all sounds very much like a big case of short termism. Key workers should either be paid enough to compete or given secure rented homes which can be passed to other incoming workers as they leave.
A. ASLOP
Lissendon Gardens, NW5
|
 |
|
|
|
