High Rise Fire

[HawkEye244]

Hawk thinks he has the right to hijack a thread on a public forum for his own moaning agenda then throw his dummy out when this is pointed out. Talk about witless.

Thread Title: High rise fire.
You need to go have a lie down boyo.

You as well. Get out.

 

[Brigadier]

Wouldn't be enough land and would be too costly.

Rubbish.

It costs as much to refurb a block, as to replace with "normal" housing.
And there is plenty of land.
I was talking to project engineer friend last night who, among other things, told me of similar projects where the same number of residences were built in the land previously taken by the block.

 

[Brigadier]

I would not disagree.
I think there has been mentioned a couple of relevant figures:
about 127 families lived in Grenfell Tower. Lets settle on 125 as a round figure.
4,000 high rise blocks in Gt Britain, not including NI.
So about 500,000 families.

We cannot build enough, or fast enough for current needs, disregarding an additional 500,000!

But if it is political will, I would vote for it, I am sure everyone else would also, until NIMBY kicks in.

We can't build enough because we've been pouring money into "improving" dumps like Grenfell, rather than replacing them, for the last 15 years.

 

[JohnD]

We don't build enough because we have a government policy not to build enough homes, and we have a government policy not to build social housing, and because we have a government policy to force councils to sell their good housing stock below market value.

 

[HawkEye244]

We don't build enough because we have a government policy not to build enough homes, and we have a government policy not to build social housing, and because we have a government policy to force councils to sell their good housing stock below market value.

24 carat garbage. Which policy would that be exactly? Link us to it.

 

[SirGalahad]

John, I am not grumbling, it is part of the risk of renting, but why tarnish all landlords with the same brush? as a responsible landlord, most of my tenants are very decent, would not allow me to leave without me joining then on a table for a dinner! but you do get across one or two every say 10 years, and of course as a landlord we are required to meet so many safety standards that in my own house I am not even forced to put a smoke detector, or have fire doors, or obtain a mandatory gas safety certificate, why is that John? is my life less worthy than that of a benefit single parent tenant who abuse system and landlords, that is why after that last benefit tenant went, I wowed never to take on another single parent tenant. She even stuffed her padded jacket in the warm air heating duct to save on unnecessary heating upstairs as she could not afford heating both upstairs and downstairs, so she stuffed her old jacket in one of the ducts leading warm air upstairs, this resulted in my WAH melt down as the heat could not circulate fully and the cupboard housing the WAU overheated like an oven and melted the plastic front panel! good job it was lined up with asbestos lining! Some tenants hey!

Wow You have had some bad tenants. Where do you find these tenants and how is it that you cannot find good tenants?

Don't you have regular inspections?

The law should be improved when it comes to dealing with bad tenants.

There is a disparity when it comes to safety checks for tenants vs home owners.

The problem we have is there are are rogue landlords and tenants which seem to set the agenda for the rest which leads to outcomes that do not benefit the majority of landlords / tenants.

 

[Brigadier]

The problem we have is there are are rogue landlords and tenants which seem to set the agenda for the rest which leads to outcomes that do not benefit the majority of landlords / tenants.

This.
In so many walks of life.

The old regulations / rules didn't work for the bad apples (often due to lax or zero enforcement), so the cheap, easy, "look how much tougher we are now" response is to introduce even tighter regs.
Which the authorities still do not enforce.

Meanwhile, the decent comply with the tougher regime (because that's what the decent do), while the bad ignore it, just like they did before.

Without effective enforcement, all "tougher" regulation does is to put the decent at even greater disadvantage.
Oh, and gives the authorities the "evidence" of their "getting tough" with the rogues, when asked "what are you doing about it?"

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

We can't build enough because we've been pouring money into "improving" dumps like Grenfell, rather than replacing them, for the last 15 years.

We don't build enough because we have a government policy not to build enough homes, and we have a government policy not to build social housing, and because we have a government policy to force councils to sell their good housing stock below market value.

I agree with John, it is a political policy/strategic direction that impacts on the house building programme.
The re-direction of finance, or the target of that finance, is a subsequent result of that policy/strategy.

You could argue that other government/social policies/direction also impacts on the need for, and the requirement for policy/strategy of housing provision.
I am thinking along the lines of the increasing disparity between rich and poor, the inordinate price of housing in certain areas, even (dare I say it) the immigration policy.

You cannot make socio-political policy decisions without considering the implications further down the line. A "laissez-faire" approach is wholly irresponsible. (Although I must admit it, I was a fan of it in my younger days).

You do not plan to put men on the moon or Antarctica (albeit those are hostile environments, but you get my drift) and hope they can sort out their own accommodation. You need to plan and provide for the infrastructure to support that habitation.
Or even, initially provide accommodation, then allow that accommodation to come under private ownership, or exploitation of third parties. Thus squeezing out the people that the accommodation was initially provided for.

 

[Brigadier]

Don't get me wrong, my post was not meant to blame lack of finance per se, but the active decision to spend (what are, in reality) limited resources on tarting up places like Grenfell, rather than going down the replace route.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Don't get me wrong, my post was not meant to blame lack of finance per se, but the active decision to spend (what are, in reality) limited resources on tarting up places like Grenfell, rather than going down the replace route.

Sorry, Brig, I did not think I had misunderstood, you.
I, like John, argue that it is political policy/ strategic directions that determines where and how the money is spent.
So where and how the money is spent is a direct, but albeit a long term, result of that political policy/ strategic direction.
I think we are all really thinking along the same lines.

If my subsequent edits changes the tone of my comments, my apologies.

 

[Brigadier]

No offence taken.

I still can't get around the thought that £10 million was spent, and it actually made a lot of people more unsafe than they would have been.

 

[securespark]

My idea was to invest in a property and keep it empty but was forced to become a landlord.

Can you explain this?

 

[HawkEye244]

Wow You have had some bad tenants. Where do you find these tenants and how is it that you cannot find good tenants?

Don't you have regular inspections?

The law should be improved when it comes to dealing with bad tenants.

There is a disparity when it comes to safety checks for tenants vs home owners.

The problem we have is there are are rogue landlords and tenants which seem to set the agenda for the rest which leads to outcomes that do not benefit the majority of landlords / tenants.

Sounds to me like another way to wheel in your agenda, which according to your earlier posts is heavily in favour of problem tenants.

That little bit of lip service doesn't change anything.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

No offence taken.

I still can't get around the thought that £10 million was spent, and it actually made a lot of people more unsafe than they would have been.

I tend to agree with your train of thought.
In simplistic terms, for £12.5 million, 125 families could have been housed in houses, each costing about £100k. (Maybe low-rise, much less)
I appreciate it is not that simple, infrastructure, land costs, demolition costs, etc may double that cost.

Then there is the problem of NIMBYism, relocating populations away from their communities, etc.

Maybe the transformative outcome may impact on future decisions along these lines.

 

[SirGalahad]

Sounds to me like another way to wheel in your agenda, which according to your earlier posts is heavily in favour of problem tenants.

That little bit of lip service doesn't change anything.

Try harder. You are like Theresa desperately in search of any win even one that's only in your mind.

What is my agenda? Treating people like Humans? Sure I have had problem tenants the worst was an ex Army soldier - he left in the middle of the night owing me some rent but that's the risk of doing business. I could have tracked him down but then I met him whilst shopping, he was at the checkout and you know what I smiled at him. I don't know his personal circumstances and sure he lost me some money but if all you do is gripe at your losses and not your gains then you are a sad person.