Suppose so really

Affordable housing residents in a new enclave of 3,400 homes are being prevented from using a luxury swimming pool and gymnasium, which are being kept for the exclusive use of private owners and renters.

Residents paying taxpayer-subsidised rents at Royal Wharf in the London borough of Newham have complained they are victims of segregation because they will not have access to a state-of-the-art clubhouse that neighbours who own or rent privately will enjoy.

Homes in the complex on the north bank of the Thames sell for up to £1.2m but 243 apartments have been made available to people on lower incomes at 60% of market rent as part of a flagship scheme by the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, to try to fix the capital’s housing crisis.

Up to about 500 residents are affected and some have branded the decision unfair because it appeared to discriminate against them because they were less well-off than the other people at the estate.

Yes, this is discrimination against you. Just as the decision to offer you subsidised housing is discrimination in favour of you.

Swings and roundabouts really, isn’t it.

27 thoughts on “Suppose so really”

  1. Well they won’t pay the service/management fee for those facilities, or do they expect that to be massively subsidised too?

  2. People are privileged to live in a city/neighbourhood they can’t really afford/aspire to, thanks in part to the largess of their wealthier neighbours. And yet it’s still not enough. They believe it unfair they can’t enter your home, sit on your sofa and help themselves to your wine.

  3. I see that Isi3s has had a similar thought to me. I suspect that the subsidised properties also have a reduced service charge too.

    If that is the case, then tough and I’m sure no court would rule that they should have equal access to facilities they’re not paying for. If they’re paying full whack on the service charge then they shouldn’t be prevented from using the facilities though.

  4. The Left invented the concept of “fake news” for a reason and, given the source of this story, you can be sure that this is just that.

    Talking of the Graun, the other day I looked up a recipe for Shepherds Pie, to ring the changes. With their usual modesty, the Gruan ran a series of recipes called “The Perfect…”

    There was far too little stock in the recipe and without my careful supervision, the mixture would have boiled dry and burnt.

    The whole this was a metaphor for the Gran, really. Not at all perfect and in the end, doesn’t deliver anything of use.

  5. It is worth remembering the cost of these policies.

    The apartment complex could have been told – rent to whom you want but on these units you have to pay us a 40% of the rent as a tax (economically the same as what is happening here).

    The people paying 60% of up market rent, could easily rent somewhere else in London for that money.

    The council could use the 40% to pay most of the rent for 243 apartments in a bad area of London. So the result of this policy is these people got a lottery style win to live somewhere nicer and 243 homeless people are stuck on the streets. Maybe the council here values mixed neighbourhoods very highly. Personally, I value people having a house at all more highly.

  6. Can’t we just move these people to Oldham? What’s the market rent on a million pound home? £3k+? So even at 60% that’s going to be £1800. I bet they don’t even earn that.

  7. The houses on my street cost about 1.6 and rent for 50k p.a. The one next to me is a council house where the old lady just died. It would probably cost 250k to do up properly. So the council could sell it for 1.4ish. For 700k within a 2 mile radius (thanks rightmove) you can buy 2 houses of the same size.

    It isn’t clear if they will sell or not. Next time someone talks about heartless tories causing homelessness, just point out s**t like this where very Labour councils fight tooth and nail to avoid providing more housing.

    Also, anyone who gets to rent that place at council magic prices is getting a c40k p.a. subsidy – which is 1.5x the pre-tax median income in the UK.

  8. Interesting:
    “Ade Eros, 37, a father of two who moved into a three-bedroom flat this summer, said it was wrong.”…

    “Whatever the reason for the policy, it is not fair. They should be motivated to include everyone.” (my highlight)

    I wonder what sort of motivation he has in mind?

  9. Poking around on rightmove looks like rent for a 3 bedroom place would be about 2400 pcm. So the discount on the rent is worth 1k p.m. tax free – or 12k p.a. tax free – given marginal tax rates for a lower rate tax payer are about 30% is the same as a pre-tax gift of 18k. Though that math might be conservative as a 18k payrise would push many people into higher rate bracket.

    Compare that 18k gift with average median income and these policies are a joke.

    Also remember that the 18k gift here will appear in zero calculations of inequality/etc.

    Oh, and he wants more.

  10. Government imports a massive supply of renters while restricting the supply of housing units. Obviously government needs to subsidise this policy failure. Expelling a lot of unwanted foreigners would solve the housing “crisis” overnight.

  11. You would think a conservative government would at least legislate to make councils calculate what market rents are and then include this in the calculations of what people are receiving, and how much money is foregone by not charging market to people who could afford it.

    Oh, we don’t have a conservative government.

  12. “243 apartments have been made available to people on lower incomes at 60% of market rent as part of a flagship scheme by the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, to try to fix the capital’s housing crisis”

    Is this true? Isn’t providing a percentage of social housing in new developments part of national planning law, so nothing to do with Khan? This sentence looks like a fake news election campaign slogan for Khan.

  13. “why?”

    Because if you had a neighbourhood full of low income people then ….I’m not sure

    The implication of these policies is that living next to low income people is unpleasant. Seems harsh to me, but what do I know.

  14. How is charging below market price supposed to solve a shortage of supply and excess of demand? We are supposed to believe that?

  15. I lived in a ‘mixed community’ in South London for 25yrs. Privately owned Georgian, Edwardian and Victorian properties alongside Local Authority housing. Can’t say there was ever a problem; everyone appeared to get on fine. You drank in the local pub alongside bus drivers and bricklayers, policemen and university lecturers, city traders and politicians – on the face of it, it really was, or appeared to be to me, an egalitarian society. That was some years ago and I suspect reality these days is somewhat different. Unfortunately you can’t turn the clock back.

  16. Most people believe that.

    Which is why Mr Khan can stand in front of an apartment complex and say look at these people who have homes thanks to me.

    Who would you point at to show that extracting that discount and gifting it to these people has left 243 other families unhelped?

    As our host is fond of saying – loosen planning permission and almost all the problems with expensive housing are solved. The resulting cut in housing benefit would also allow a big tax cut – and given the deadweight costs of tax that would have a double dividend.

  17. We can also observe from the grenfell tower illegal subletting that many people are perfectly happy to go and live somewhere else.

    So if you really want to enforce mixed neighbourhoods you are going to need some very strict and intrusive monitoring.

  18. Going by the residents of grenfell tower the majority of these tenants will be freeloaders from the third world. – quite why we have to house for free these freeloaders in one of the worlds most expensive cities is beyond me.
    However if granted access to the facilities they will be demanding separation of men and women and all the other shit that comes with the rop and screaming islamophobia if not granted. I say fuck em and the horse they rode in on.

  19. Discrimination is the basis of all insurance premiums set by a sane (or even solvent) insurer. It is also the basis upon which we have separate male and female contests in the Olympic Games (but not in the Premier League).
    There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se – only with unjust discrimination!
    If the private sector resident are paying umpteen thousands for an exclusive pool and clubhouse, then limiting them to the guys/gals paying for it is totally justified discrimination, just as my garden gate keeping the yobs out of my wife’s garden is justified discrimination.

  20. “243 apartments have been made available to people on lower incomes at 60% of market rent as part of a flagship scheme by the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, to try to fix the capital’s housing crisis”

    70% have now been sub-let to normal people with original tenant pocketing a £12,000 pa tax-free profit.

    One tenant, Mustuffa Pocketali, refused to explain why he’s still living with his parents in Hounslow and two young LME traders are living in his flat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *