This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Dec 17 2.35pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
Been broken into 3 times since they built some locally, and not once before then. And yes, the people who did it were from there. Not to mention that every time you hear a police car go up the road, it goes to the same place. If the council want social housing they should build it, rather than piggy-back on someone else's development in a form of blackmail. It's a s*** development though even if it's all private, I'm against it either way. In not sure tagging a few social houses onto new developments is ever going to work. Whatever happened to the idea of building social housing estates? I've got great memories of being a nipper living on a council estate.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Dec 17 2.36pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
In not sure tagging a few social houses onto new developments is ever going to work. Whatever happened to the idea of building social housing estates? I've got great memories of being a nipper living on a council estate. Oh yeah, they don't make shedloads of money, merely pay for themselves over time with rent.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 08 Dec 17 3.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
In not sure tagging a few social houses onto new developments is ever going to work. Whatever happened to the idea of building social housing estates? I've got great memories of being a nipper living on a council estate. It's about all they do, it's either in the form of blackmail from the council "we'll give you planning if you give us x number of dwellings" or a bribe from the developer "give us permission and we'll provide x number of social. They're lazy councils, they should be building their own sites and controlling them. The whole package.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Dec 17 4.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
It's about all they do, it's either in the form of blackmail from the council "we'll give you planning if you give us x number of dwellings" or a bribe from the developer "give us permission and we'll provide x number of social. They're lazy councils, they should be building their own sites and controlling them. The whole package. I'd like to talk about the councils but this is general talk so I daren't risk another yellow, which is a shame as there is a debate about the role of councils and housing.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 08 Dec 17 5.10pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I'd like to talk about the councils but this is general talk so I daren't risk another yellow, which is a shame as there is a debate about the role of councils and housing. It's a general talk about housing. You didn't get a yellow for talking politics in GT, you got in for being petulant to the moderators, IMO.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 08 Dec 17 6.01pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
Been broken into 3 times since they built some locally, and not once before then. And yes, the people who did it were from there. Not to mention that every time you hear a police car go up the road, it goes to the same place. If the council want social housing they should build it, rather than piggy-back on someone else's development in a form of blackmail. It's a s*** development though even if it's all private, I'm against it either way. The mask has really slipped now. Unfortunately for you, the percentage of socially inclusive housing in new developments is only being increased, not decreased. If you can actually prove the identity of your burglars then fine, even if the frequency does seem statistically unlikely. Maybe they’ve heard about your views? But again with the us and them mentality - segregation, discrimination. Building exclusive flats with no social provision and housing estates for the sole purpose of segregating the rich from the poor simply fuels resentment and inequality. In no way am I saying this is a shining beacon of inclusion but points of view such as yours are the reason there is so much social friction and acceptance of the generally accepted perception of grubby uneducated working poor vs the civilised middle class. It’s like going back to the 70s. I despair
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 11 Dec 17 3.19pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
The mask has really slipped now. Unfortunately for you, the percentage of socially inclusive housing in new developments is only being increased, not decreased. If you can actually prove the identity of your burglars then fine, even if the frequency does seem statistically unlikely. Maybe they’ve heard about your views? But again with the us and them mentality - segregation, discrimination. Building exclusive flats with no social provision and housing estates for the sole purpose of segregating the rich from the poor simply fuels resentment and inequality. In no way am I saying this is a shining beacon of inclusion but points of view such as yours are the reason there is so much social friction and acceptance of the generally accepted perception of grubby uneducated working poor vs the civilised middle class. It’s like going back to the 70s. I despair
You need to work on your turn of phrase.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Dec 17 11.37am | |
---|---|
How's this looking? Deserves bumping over the next couple of weeks.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Painter Croydon 21 Dec 17 5.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
It's about all they do, it's either in the form of blackmail from the council "we'll give you planning if you give us x number of dwellings" or a bribe from the developer "give us permission and we'll provide x number of social. They're lazy councils, they should be building their own sites and controlling them. The whole package. Its Government policy, Councils have to abide. Not in favour of your idea of building ghettos. Social inclusion is just what Purley needs in a massive tower block overlooking Tesco shoppers.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
regal_eagle somewhere 21 Dec 17 6.33pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Painter
Its Government policy, Councils have to abide. Not in favour of your idea of building ghettos. Social inclusion is just what Purley needs in a massive tower block overlooking Tesco shoppers. It's the last thing Purley needs. Numerous smaller builds is what it needs, not one giant eye sore. ...then you still get all those painting jobs you seem to be hawking for.. Edited by regal_eagle (21 Dec 2017 6.34pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 04 Dec 18 1.38pm | |
---|---|
It’s been rejected. Please merge.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.