Demolishing housing estates

Yes, but you need to have a final point where if a family is destroying a neighbourhood that has to be the final act. Yes, they are homeless but will be provided with temporary accommodation and it is possible having lost their home they can be helped to think things through.

Why should roads and neighbourhoods have to undergo the misery of families whose children threaten neighbours, damage their property and leave them living in fear, because a council will not in extremis remove them from their house. What solution do you propose?

There will be very few familes where this is necessary. DD lives in an ex council house, the neighbouring property is still one. When the elderly lady who lived there when she moved in decided to move to a small bungalow she was replaced by a single mother, two children and a partner who wandered in and out. Initially the new tenant was a dreadful neighbour, rubbish piled up in the front garden, overgrown back garden, lots of noise and shouting. When her neighbours complained, the Housing Association were quick to act. They helped clear the gardens, presumably read the riot act or offered help and now bins are used and put out regularly, the back garden is not allowed to get too wild and the noise level has diminished. In most cases that is what will happen. Eviction is a last resort.

gillybob that must have been an awful time for your poor parents, glad they were able to finally move away.

That's terrible Gillybob your poor parents.

rosesarered:
He does want the land, this is the last paragraph of his speech:
"So regeneration will work best in areas where land values are high, because new private homes, built attractively and at a higher density, will fund the regeneration of the rest of the estate.
Now how do you read that? Councils will have to sell the land to private cocerns, who will build houses for sale, and councils will have to use the money to build new estates. Where? Next door to the nice private estate? Builders will find some way to avoid that, by promising to build a few "affordable houses" on the new estate. Council tenants will not be able to afford them, and the number will be small. The new council estate built by the council will be far away from schools attended by tenants' kids, and far away from workplaces. But Cameron doesn't much care, as he knows council tenants do not work and do not send their kids to school!

...will fund the regeneration of the rest of the estate.

Sounds to me as though the estates are going to comprise a mixture of private homes and social housing. The clue is in the words 'the rest of the estate'.

Isn't that exactly what they do at the moment? With new developments. Seems to work ok.

What I don't understand is how you can build enough homes to house the tenants from the high rise blocks, on the same amount of land.

(I think the 'sink estates' would be the high rise ones, wouldn't they?) How is it going to work?

I wonder how many of these housing estates he wants to be demolished are in London?

www.google.com/url?q=http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/10/08/ignore-cameron-s-rhetoric-the-tories-are-the-party-of-fallin&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwin7YaNiKrKAhVEliwKHaNzANMQFggFMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHYTu8MsWQS8vcR5BbzzPo6XwzHvw

Less than 50% of Londoners own their homes. The deposit has gone up to £100,000 so even fewer people will be able to.

speye.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/tories-demolish-homes-owned-in-cameron-plan/

If someone who has bought his house through right to buy does not want it knocked down in Cameron's new plan, he can stop the redevelopment of the whole scheme.
Councils will have to agree to it, too. Why should a socialist council which has had its previous schemes scrapped five years ago agree to what Cameron wants to do now?

Would they object because he is pinching their ideas? That would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. If the housing is old and needs replacing for the good of the tenants, surely it doesn't matter who initiates the replacing. Funding it by selling off SOME of the houses would mean less expense to the council. It would also mean a mix of occupancy, which ought to stop it becoming a sink estate.

SOME not MOST.

I am sure they could build round any house which has been bought. Unpleasant for the occupier, but I daresay some would say it serves them right for getting above themselves and becoming a "middleclass" houseowner.

Now the Tories have got a majority they have got the bit between the teeth and are intent on destroying many aspects of British life. NHS, BBC and social housing.
He talks about a paltry £14 million for "regeneration" which would just about cover the bills for bulldozing.

Elegran!

Cameron himself said that his idea had not been thought through.

Elegran your post 20:33 spot on.

Except that she omitted to remember that it was the Labour party who initiated the plan and the tories stopped it.
So her post was not spot on at all.
If it does not matter who initiated it, why was it a good idea for the tories to stop it?
You make a nonsense of your statement.

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/13/rogue-landlords-exploiting-deepening-housing-crisis

So he publishes a headline-grabbing article in his name in a national newspaper (presumably penned by a minion) and then says it's not been thought through. Surely not!
Mind you this is the politician who shocked his party by blurting out last spring that he is going to resign before the next election. Which means that there are now a lot of his senior colleagues jostling for position in their bid to succeed him.

Elegran, would you explain - if social housing is demolished and fewer houses being built to replace them - not forgetting there is already very long waiting lists for social housing - how will this benefit councils ? I accept it will benefit buy to rent landlords but this means more people will need help with paying the rent because rents are so high and the government refuses to cap rents of these private lets

Dave isn't going to carry this out, it's just PR blurb for the May elections , more hot air

djen when you say that Cameron himself had said he had not thought things through (PMQ's this week) that was a joke!Did you not realise this?

So it's Conservative hot air as opposed to Labour hot air.They can all churn it out you know.

So a question to those who are agin these proposals..... let us hear an alternative.

I have worked with families on 'sink estates' and I know the problems that exist. I know many want out - for their children's same.

Horrible though it is, it's not just a few problem families, it is a youth culture of drink, drugs, violence, gangs. And mothers, especially single mothers, know that their children can easily be drawn in.

Anya, I agree with you but demolishing the estates will not stop the problems you listed , will a family suddenly turn into pillars of society because they have a new house to live in.

Moving families with problems to a specific area means ghettoes

I do wish Cameron would stop using PMQ for his over rehearsed jokes , I think when he said it hadn't been thought through he had actually found he can speak the truth