| |
Viewed as sub-prime people on prime land
• ON the Maiden Lane estate they want to knock our houses down and kick us out.
Everyone on the estate has been sent a load of junk mail full of council news-speak and privatisers’ babble.
We tenants and residents are seen by them, the council and their mates the speculators, as sub-prime people sitting on prime land.
And there are fat profits to be made when they kick us out.
It would be naïve to believe them when they say that the profits are going back to the council estate as neither the estate nor the people are going to be there.
This is not just those threatened today but all those who think they live in a bulldozer-free zone.
Their homes will be for it tomorrow.
In their propaganda the council are giving the impression that there has been majority support for their plans. But nothing of the sort has happened.
What has happened is the tenants of not just this estate but all Camden have voted no again and again to privatisation.
RD WARREN
Broadfield Lane, NW1
High costs
• One needs to rise above fanciful words such as devolution and empowerment to even comprehend why Camden is selling off council homes to highest bidders in auction-rooms.
This is despite contrary outcomes from consultations of tenant representatives undertaken by Camden.
We do need to examine carefully why the government’s housing subsidy formula is rigged against councils such as Camden.
They are, because our government without actually saying it directly considers Camden’s management and maintenance costs to be too high.
In fact Camden agrees and has proudly boasted high costs for years explaining that their quality of service is second to none.
Well, dissecting this high quality service, let’s take my own estate as example: A communal soil pipe – leaking sewer for over 14 months before it was repaired; and in my own flat, dangerous windows finally replaced 13 months and 11 wasted visits later from different Camden operatives and surveyors; and despite numerous reports and walkabouts over a number of years, growing fungus on external walls due to faulty rainwater pipes, still outstanding! None of these examples has anything to do with lack of cash, it’s pure incompetence, left-hand not knowing what the right is doing.
I have had sight of a council document costing our block’s caretaking service at £52 per operational hour inclusive of all overheads. Agreed, most of this technically has little to do with management and maintenance. One wonders though, if these examples and unit costs are mirrored across management and maintenance, is the money raised from sale of our council homes going to fund such extortionate costs based on incompetence? And shouldn’t we hold our council to account instead of always blaming the government?
Council housing in Camden will continue to bleed away in one form or another for as long as management and maintenance costs remain unchallenged.
Meric Apak
Chair, Artisan Dwellings Tenants and Residents Association
|
 |
|
| |
