So, is this reality? 1000 % increase in homeless families rehoused outside London

1000% increase in homeless familie rehoused outside london

Yes it is. And it is not just the genuinely homeless but also many people on the "waiting lists" as made clear by Hammersmith & Fulham who are doing the future right now: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/New_era_for_social_housing_in_Hammersmith_and_Fulham.asp

Most have been chucked off the H&F list.

I recall writing into the London Plan in about 2008, and Southwark Core strategy, asking about how the "waiting lists" were made, and if it included people on more than two waiting lists.

The more "demand" loaded into the plans the greater the crisis and more imperative to sell off Council owned land to private corporations. So they used "demand".

There's nothing to stop anyone being on more than one list so there might be some people finally giving up on London and taking (forced to take) what they can get elsewhere.

Dire. The whole thing is such a mess.

With so many private tenants being evicted, 200,000+, and all kinds of homeownership costs and options being so expensive, many secure tenants already in social housing are not going to move out even if they could afford to move. Everything is just too risky.

It is a really difficult issue.

On one hand:
Why should working people like me (who pay through the nose) subsidise homeless people to stay in the centre of London and therefore in vastly overpriced housing. Most low paid workers can't even afford to live in London and so face long commutes from Kent etc.
The only exception might be for people who have qualified for housing by living here for decades, or growing up here.

On the other hand:
it is exporting the poor outside London and dumping them on the suburbs. Leaving it for the rich...

I do take exception when I look at social housing near the Thames southbank and see a man with a dog on a string coming out. I couldn't even dream of affording a place near there....

johnnytee wrote:

I do take exception when I look at social housing near the Thames southbank and see a man with a dog on a string coming out. I couldn't even dream of affording a place near there....

That's all relative. Up until 10 years ago a cab driver wouldn't take you south of the river. I am not joking: it was OK for poor people with a dog on string to live here before Southwark became fashionable and now all of a sudden they are the scum of the earth?

Johnnytee wrote:

I do take exception when I look at social housing near the Thames southbank and see a man with a dog on a string coming out. I couldn't even dream of affording a place near there....

I know what you mean, Johnny, and I do sympathise, but neither can the guy with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier afford it (just an educated guess). He is not the owner of the property but is a tenant. If there wasn't social housing there then, as you say, it would be leaving it for the rich and depriving the local community of normal people.

I think we're all victims of a crazy property market and that unless you happen to work in the financial or insurance sector, depending on how old you are, you're either a theoretical millionaire (because you bought your property when prices were cheap and have enjoyed the astronomical rises in prices) or someone who is never going to be able to afford to buy because you were born a generation too late.

I don't mind the guy with a Staffie on a string.....
Its GOOD to have a mix in the area.

Equally I dislike both the shuttered and barred empty flats of K&C and the kids on bikes who cruise around dealing drugs on my street . Could do without both of that!!

It's just as well we have councils working for local people eh (whistles)

No doubt many will be jobless and are being dumped in areas where there is lots of vacant housing, precisely because there are no jobs. Then there will be those on the political right demanding something be done about unemplyment being what they will call a 'lifestyle' decision for the multigenerational jobless.

This is the nonsense that is coming out of current government policy. Another is councils in some areas that are deliberately demolishing two and three bed maisonette type properties they can't let to families because they have no lifts and can't let to single people or couples because they have more than one bedroom (because of the bedroom tax). These homes are simply being lost from the social stock and being replaced by much more expensive ones to the taxpayer (often of a shockingly low standard) in the private sector.

Complete madness!

[/quote]That's all relative. Up until 10 years ago a cab driver wouldn't take you south of the river. I am not joking: it was OK for poor people with a dog on string to live here before Southwark became fashionable and now all of a sudden they are the scum of the earth?[/quote]

Well, its not me calling the man "scum of the earth" so less strawman arguments please.
I do believe that because there is such a squeeze on housing policy that it needs to be value based (most bang for the buck) especially if the beneficaries contribute next to nothing and rely on public spending.
Selling the southbank social housing for 1/2 million each and buying 2 houses for that on the outskirts of Southwark seems an efficient use of money. Best for everyone but not for him and his staffy perhaps...

My wider point is that the welfare state is almost broken now. The reason for that is because it is now based on "needs" and not "entitlement", which would have the people who set it up spinning in their graves.

[quote johnnytee][/quote]That's all relative. Up until 10 years ago a cab driver wouldn't take you south of the river. I am not joking: it was OK for poor people with a dog on string to live here before Southwark became fashionable and now all of a sudden they are the scum of the earth?[/quote]

Well, its not me calling the man "scum of the earth" so less strawman arguments please.
I do believe that because there is such a squeeze on housing policy that it needs to be value based (most bang for the buck) especially if the beneficaries contribute next to nothing and rely on public spending.
Selling the southbank social housing for 1/2 million each and buying 2 houses for that on the outskirts of Southwark seems an efficient use of money. Best for everyone but not for him and his staffy perhaps...

My wider point is that the welfare state is almost broken now. The reason for that is because it is now based on "needs" and not "entitlement", which would have the people who set it up spinning in their graves.[/quote]

Just leave the bloke the with dog on a string alone, whatever you call him.