Brokenshire to stamp out ‘poor doors’

Better still why not just build council estates like we used to .......everybody seemed happy enough. (I was brought up in a council house and seemed fine to me). Of course that wouldn’t be diverse enough or PC today.

When we were buying our BTL properties, most of them are ex-LA homes. However a stigma "Once a council, always a council" was always present and will always be. The division will always exist. No matter what the Government is saying and/or trying to intervene. Sad but true, particularly on South East

If real world rent was charged there wouldn't be any stigma to living in Social Housing? Anyone on a low income would receive Housing Benefit or Universal Credit to help pay. Why should anyone earning proper money get subsidised housing (especially if it makes them feel in any way stigmatized)?
Surely charging closer to market rent would promote feelings of equality among tenants and provide the Housing Associations with ample money to maintain existing housing to a high standard and build more housing.

A factual observation. I've lived in a lovely small Suffolk village for about 10 years now with a few council houses scattered around. One reason I moved here was because it was as good as crime free and had a good pub. Most of the original old school council house tenants have now passed on, bless them, and the council houses are now being used as emergency housing. In the last year local crime has become a big problem with lots of break ins including attempts at my place and in the past couple of months we have had two police raids, both to council houses with armed police involved, one had 11 police cars parked up the road from me. The other day the police arrived and had to taser one of the tenants who was in the street with a machete wanting to kill his father. The local pub has changed hands three times in the last year and is no longer a pleasant place to go because now used by local yobbo's and their mates. A huge increase in rubbish scattered around and the other day there were 40 odd beer cans in the entrance to one of the bridal paths. All provable crimes have been attributed to these "emergency" tenants who never seem to get locked up but most wearing tags. Two of the families in the council houses are several generation of not interested in working. Who wants to live next door to these kind of people. I was brought up on a small council estate of about 40 houses in the 50's and then everyone helped each other with the odd exception of course and it wasn't a bad life. What's the answer? I have no idea.

Paradoxically, policies like this may lead to fewer social houses being built. Let me explain why. When planning consent is applied for developers include a viability study to show how much if any social housing the scheme can support. In many cases the social housing has negative value to the developer and is disposed of to a housing association at effectively a loss.
Planners and social engineers think it is a good thing to "pepper-pot" social housing among open market housing. Having common entrances so that the banker shares the entrance and the lift with the busker and the lawyer with the laundryman is likely to devalue the property in the banker's and lawyer's eyes.
This has the effect (although this is sometimes disputed) of reducing the value of the open market housing. This in turn affects the viability of the overall scheme. The developer can then argue (and win at appeal if the Council don't agree) that the percentage of social housing should be reduced.

Although it’s not PC to say this these days, people really do like to live amongst their own groups, whether that’s race, religion or income. A “nice” area is one which has a higher valued housing stock purchased by those with better jobs and higher incomes. Nicer people who have better standards generally (and I mean generally) are those with better incomes. A wealthy area has less crime and is better looked after, due to the quality of the people living there. A lawyer is generally less likely to start leaving litter, spray graffiti, have a garden full of car exhausts and tyres than a person lower down the social scale. People requiring social housing are mostly in socio-economic groups C, D and E whereas better areas it’s those in B and C1. Just biology at the end of the day. The left leaning establishment is trying socially and racially to engineer something different to what our biology is telling us. (Apologies for telling it like it is.)

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 23/07/2019 - 11:38
Agree entirely. You cannot force people (especially those with the money and therefore choice) to live where they do not want, for whatever reason. I want to live amongst people who also keep the exterior of their property in good order, remember to take their bins back in and live to a 'normal' schedule.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 23/07/2019 - 11:55
Exactly, I am happy to mix with anyone and do as long as there is respect all round. I can't take my Grandchildren up the local pub for lunch anymore, the language, behaviour and food is bad now and I'm not of an age where I feel safe to speak up, would have done a few years ago. Again, its the same old story, these lefties just don't get it. I bet Polly Neate or Brockenshire wouldn't want to live next door to one of the crims now in our village!!

More end of term socialism from Brokenshire.

The BBC’s article about it revealed that Labour’s Mayor Sadiq Khan was the source of this plan, and even provided the verb to describe their synthetic horror at this social apartheid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49053920

“Communities Secretary James Brokenshire said he had been "appalled" by the examples of segregation he had seen.”

“London Mayor Sadiq Khan promised during his election campaign in 2015 to ban the practice, describing it as an "appalling form of social segregation".

"Poor doors segregate people who are living side by side, they drive a wedge between our communities," he said at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/sadiq-khan-pledges-ban-poor-doors-london-housing-developments-mayor

You can listen to some social tenants complaining of unfairness. One uses the “rich people’s” lift if somebody leaves the gate open between the two buildings. If he is told off he says take me to court.

One said that if the social tenants did not pay their rent, the other building would not be there.

Once a week “protesters calling themselves “Class War” caused a disturbance. A class warrior with a loud hailer shouted “One door for all”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p02ll8j4

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Leverett at 23/07/2019 - 11:01
I think the difference is when you and Dylan Morris were brought up on a council estate most of the families had two parents, at least one of whom was in employment, albeit low paid. This is no longer the case, partly because of changes in societal norms and partly because of the demise of traditional heavy industry and other low-skill manual employment. Today council estates house single (or claiming to be single) female headed households and long-term unemployed families, some with two or more generations who have nothing to do all day but cause trouble or perhaps seek to blur the realities of their unfulfilled lives with drink or drugs.