Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

Whitewave, I am aware if their needs, they need secure homes, they need long term medical treatment , they need justice. Fsct

There are no empty houses available yet fact.

I am rather amused by you and Jen's critcism of me, tell me do

How can one house be built in three weeks?

This is the real world not the land if Oz

The survivors are functioning entirely on emotion annie give them a break and be kinder to their needs and fears.

www.google.com/url?q=http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/11/map-reveals-shocking-number-of-empty-homes-across-london-6630121/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjRspuSnPTUAhWBdpoKHSoXBpYQFggFMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG9HKTyhU6Dv0h0w5qpKezHKI6HnQ

Are these empty homes council properties ?

Emotion does not build houses in three weeks. Fact. I live in the real world , I have been homeless .

No practical reply just more sniping

There are no empty council properties available , fact

Kensington and Chelsea has more empty homes than any other borough in London.

Heaven forbid that emotions get in the way in this case!

Whitewave, I am not making a case fir the council, I face fscts, you explain

How the homeless can be housed in properties similar to the flats in the same area, one couple refused to move a mile away, when there are no empty properties ? I would like houses built for them in three weeks, cannot be done .

So easy to allow emotions to override what is fact.

annie you make a continual case for the council and government, but the truth is that none of the survivors have any reason to trust them. The, council, after all in their eyes are responsible for the fire.

How would you feel if, after many years of trying to get the council to accept your fears of the fire danger, you were both ignored and indeed threatened with legal proceedings?

I would be as mad as hell.

Eleothan, if there are no similar empty properties in the same area ?

I wonder if there is anywhere in the borough where temporary prefabricated accommodation could be erected. Probably not, but I am pretty sure that if I were in this dreadful situation, I would rather be housed in something basic but clearly and unequivocally temporary than be pressured into accepting something more permanent right now that I didn't feel was suitable.

How can they be rehoused in the same borough when there are no houses available?

durhamjen I agree - this is a matter of trust. How can anyone trust governments, councils, individuals that 'backtrack' and change their minds/policies at the drop of a hat?! If these people accept a 'temporary' placement they are no longer homeless and may not be considered for anywhere more permanent. I cannot imagine the mental trauma they are already suffering after the events they have witnessed and the loss of everything they have ever owned. My heart goes out to them.

Presumably they were quite happy in their homes - I believe some people had lived there for a while. Then, one terrible day, their homes and every single thing they own goes up in flames, perhaps the fire also taking with it family members and friends.

This didn't happen because of their carelessness or because of anything they had done. They experienced this unimaginably awful ordeal and lost everything because somewhere along the line either our regulatory system was not fit for purpose or someone decided, for whatever reason, to flout the regulations.

If I were one of these people - given that warnings had been issued and ignored - I would think it only fair that I be re-housed somewhere near my previous home and in similar accommodation. And I would want written assurance that my rent wouldn't suddenly leap up at some point and force me out of the property.

This is why they are suspicious of authority.

'He said he has met 30 residents and heard many reasons why they are reluctant to take up the offers with a “lack of trust” in officials being one.

Sharma said: “Some families were told they were moving in to Grenfell Tower on a temporary basis, and then years later they were still there.

“Their concerns are entirely understandable. That is trust we need to work hard to earn.”

On reports people are being asked to move far away from London or deemed homeless if they do not accept an offer, Sharma added: “If this is ever suggested to a victim then it is completely unacceptable.” '

At least Sharma is trying to understand at last.

Why should they move a couple of miles grandmamoira when it's not their fault they ve lost their homes ....but it's not even about mileage how do you know thst the flat they are offered Isn't on the twentieth floor or isn't in the middle of a bad area there's a million and one reasons as to what they ve been offered may not be suitable one lady said she had been offered a private flat which would be paid for a year but they wouldn't give her anything in writing about the costs after that she was afraid of saying yes and not being able to afford it after a year I think it's a dreadful situation with no winners

I think they are right to stay put. Kenisngton is the wealthiest areas in Europe and can afford to put these people in bought houses.
Its sickening when all the time there is so much money around to finance elections eg and these poor unfortunate people are expected to live in high rise flats somewhere else. That is what they are afraid of - not being able to sleep properly again.
They have a strong case and can be forgiven for making the most out of it. I would in their place!

Whilst I understand these families have had a most terrible experience and need all the help they can get, there is such a shortage of social housing in London to find enough homes very close to the old ones is highly unlikely. Surely any who do not have young children at school could move a couple of miles?
I wonder what will happen to all the other people on the waiting list who are living in dreadful accommodation and will now have to wait much longer.
The housing situation in London is at breaking point.

The Shard is 95% owned by Qatar.

Investment purposes?

I have just read that rich people do not want to live in the Shard apartments because they do not want to live south of the river. Why buy them in the first place?

x posts Bluebelle

It's such early days - imagine losing all your possessions and what that means. And some have lost family and friends. They are at the beginnng of a long journey of having to accept that so much has gone. They need time without pressure or judgement in which to make these decisions - decide in haste, repent at leisure.Compassion is everything at the moment. Some will find it easier to decide than others but it's only three weeks isn't it? Poor, poor people.

I think it's totally understandable we aren't privy to see what's being offered they have probably been offered whatever they could quickly find, they might not be up to standard they might be offered a similar size but it might be dirty, run down, in a bad area, or in another high rise block, away from family and friends and support That little girl who' s family had turned a flat down because it was too far away was terribly traumatise she broke down bless her They ve lost friends, family, their homes and all their precious belongings through no fault of their own and people expect them to just slot into anything to make it convienent for the council

'What is to be done? Clearly the immediate overwhelming priority is finding viable, local housing for the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster. Kensington contains over a thousand empty homes, some empty for 15 years, some likely owned by offshore companies avoiding tax, some owned by the wealthy Cadogan Estate and leased to absentee tenants who appear to have more money than sense. If there is any way of making these homes useful to those in need, it should be done.

The sad reality is that without a change in the law, this is likely impossible. But the law could be changed: not to allow the State to seize property, as some fevered rightwing commentators fear, but simply to charge very high council tax on unoccupied properties. In England, councils are allowed to charge up to 50% extra council tax on any home that’s been empty for more than 2 years. But in Scotland, the rules are tighter: local authorities are able to increase council tax by 100% on homes empty for 1 year or more. Why can’t the whole of the UK move to this tighter system, and penalise the owners of long-term empty homes?

In the meanwhile, the empty flats of the super-rich in Cadogan Square will stare vacantly, uncaring, across the borough of Kensington to the empty, blackened shell of Grenfell Tower: two cities, a world apart.'

The woman who has been suggested to take over Kensington and Chelsea is the councillor for Cadogan Square, where many of the mansions have been empty for up to 15 years.