Barnet - where social housing is simply a fantastic investment opportunity whilst people are homeless

The Barnet Eye always welcomes emails which concern our community and what is happening. We receive lots of these. Some are guest blogs, some are notices of events. There is a simple rule. If you send us an email, if we have something to say about it, we will. In this case I received an email from Cogress, who are a community of investors, about some stunning returns on investments in social housing in the London Borough of Barnet. It seems that you can get a 25% return on your money if you are prepared to invest in social Housing schemes.

Press Release - Cogress

Now as an investor myself, I have no issue with anyone wishing to use their money to make more money. Organisations like Cogress give people what clearly appears to be an excellent chance to make a pot of dosh.

What does concern me is that if the returns are really as high as is being stated at 25%, this justr shows how out of hand and overheated the private housing development market in Barnet is becoming. I've no ideological objection to the private sector taking up the slack in the social housing market, but it is clear that if you can obtain a 25% return, then something is not quite right with the way Barnet Council is managing its housing stock. Of course this is fantastic news for investors and landords (some of which are members of the Barnet Conservative administration). Again don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being a landlord, it is a legitimate way to invest money.

The point is that the costs of social housing generally come back to the taxpayer. If there is a shortage of social housing stock, the costs rise and they turn into "excellent investment opportunities". This translates into 25% returns for investors. This is good for those at the top of the food chain, but what does it do for those in the middle and at the bottom?

Lets look at how it affects the middle class. Between the 1960's and the early part of this century, most middle class couples would get jobs, settle down, then plan to start a family and buy a home. The price of property in Barnet means that this is a pipedream, unless the bank of mum and dad can step in. What this means is generally children leave the area and mutual support networks break down. This means that grandparents are less able to help with childcare, whilst they are able to and children are unable to assist elderly relatives, when they start to develop care needs. The costs of the care then falls on the taxpayer and sadly many elderly people get very shoddy care, especially in a climate of welfare and adult social care cuts.

Then there is the effect on those at the bottom of the social tree. Rocketing housing costs force people in dependency on benefits. This means that there is a catch 22 situation where people don't take work because they end up worse off. For many in Barnet, a 35 hour week on minimum wage wouldn't even cover the cost of renting a basic flat.

The council didn't used to have this problem, large council estates such as Burnt Oak, Colindale and Mill Hill East to name a few were built to address these problems, Whilst these may not have been perfect, working class families at least had decent and affordable housing. Sadly under Margaret Thatcher, the Tories turned away from social housing. Building stopped and the stock was run down. This leaves us in the current situation where young families have virtually no chance of getting housed, until they are in dire straights.

The answer is simple. Barnet Council needs to start building social housing on a large scael in Barnet. The 25% profits talked about in the press release are largely paid for by the tax payer. Profits on this scale mean that Barnet Council could recoup their investment in less than four years. It is insanity for the Council to not be acting to lower the costs. It is even worse that they expect taxpayers to fuel this feeding frenzy of private profit at the public expense.

The council should be able to borrow money at rock bottom rates to fund council house building. This would mean that if the returns are 25%, they would be turning a profit from day one. This would allow them to spend more money on social care and for all of us, we'd get a better deal on our taxes.

I can see no sensible explanation why the council should pay private investors a 25% premium for something they could do for themselves. 

Social Housing, single mothers and failing the next generation - A co-operative answer

Abject failure, pure bloody abject failure. That is what Great Britain PLC is facing. That is what Barnet Council is facing. What am I talking about? Social housing. If you are sixteen (the age of my eldest daughter) what sort of a life faces you? If you have aspirations, you will go to University and end up with £20-30,000 worth of debt when you enter the workplace. And it in, say ten years time, you have worked hard at Uni, got a decent job paying say £45,000 per annum (which most people won't) and you've met someone you like what then? You want to buy somewhere to live? Mortgage lenders lend on 3 X salary. So you have £20 odd grand debt. You can borrow £135,000.Do you know of a place in Barnet going for that money. And that is for someone who has done well. The only way you could start to afford it, is if you have a rich mummy and daddy who can bale you out. Does that encourage self sufficiency?

And what about the other end of the social spectrum? What about the kids who leave school at 18 with no proper qualifications, with no wealthy mums or dads to help them. What about those kids who want to escape from home. There is only one easy solution. Have a child and get a council to accomodate you. Do I think this is wrong? Well I don't criticise people who are shafted by an unfair system, the human race is resilient and inventive. That is why we have prospered. I most certainly don't expect anyone to lie back and get punched in the face by the system, every day of their life for ever.

So you get a flat, you get your benefits and what then? You can't work, because you've got a child. You have no qualifications, so you won't get a decent job anyway. Would I stack cans in Tescos for the minimum wage (or nothing as the government seems to think you should), if I could get by on benefits? Do me a favour.

And what is even more perverse is the number of empty properties in nice areas, such as Barnet. The Council don't own these, private landlords do. For whatever reason, they are often quite happy to let the properties sit empty and rotting. Especially in these times of austerity, where no one will lend you money to do them up.

Morrissey & Band campaign against benefit scroungers at Santiago gig

And then what about the educational prospects for single mothers, on benefits with child? How can they ever learn? The Barnet Eye has been approached by a "social entrepreneur" who believes he has an answer. Does he? Well I don't know, but I do know that his ideas at the very least are worthy of discussion.

Consider this. If you have a block of flats or properties,  which could accomodate say 20-30 single mothers in decent accommodation, with children, but these properties are currently empty, who benefits? Councils spend a small fortune on "rental accomodation". This money is solves the immediate issue of housing, but nothing else. Just suppose that each of the single mothers was offered the opportunity to study, with a view to finding their way into the workplace as their child grows. But you may ask, what about the childcare. Well surely if there are 20-30 mothers in a similar situation, between them they could operate a co-operative creche service. If each mother gave 3 hours a week, then the children could be cared for, at virtually nil cost. The women could then get qualifications and part time jobs.

So what would the council need to do? Simply make funds available to support the finding of suitable locations for the creche and training and safeguarding. In the long term, the schemes could be self financing, but seed money is clearly needed to get the program working. By combining micro-financing (small scale loans from the co-operative to the women), people could be raised out of poverty and the cycle of despair broken. Where does the private element come in? Well with so much property, surely it is in the councils interests to get private landlords with empty buildings to participate. If the members of the scheme were signed up to fixed term contracts, then surely this would offer income and guarantees. The person who contacted me tells me that he already has schemes running and has a 97% success rate in helping break the cycle of despair. He has asked me to introduce him to the people I know at Barnet Council, with a view to running a pilot in the Borough.

But before I do (assuming they will listen to any suggestion the Barnet Eye makes), I'd like to hear the views of the people who read my blog? Is this good or bad? Does such schemes have a place in Barnet in 2012? I've heard one side of the story and it sounds good to me. Lets start a debate

Barnet Council new housing policy. A masterpiece of stupidity

“I think these proposals should do that but I want to hear from all of the key parties before we finalise a policy” - This is the verdict of Councillor Richard Cornelius, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing on Barnet Councils latest discussion paper on the many failings of its council housing policies. The Barnet Eye has already revealed how this paper admits Barnet are institutionally racist in their dealings with ethnic minorities (a fact shamefully ignored by the other local press and media -hang your heads in shame boys and girls). Well I had hoped that the media who get paid to do this (I just do it out of love for my fellow citizens) would actually do a proper bit of analysis on this paper, but they couldn't be bothered. I guess that the underclass are not too worthy of column inches.

Well if they won't I guess I'll have to give up what little spare time I have to step into the breach  (cheers guys). Here's the really obnoxious bits in potted form

Here's what exactly is wrong with this (apart from the fact that people who write this crap clearly have no concept of the fact that people aren't on the housing list because life is going well).

9.13 This policy discriminates against those in most need. Doesn't it occur to the authors that those in dire straights don't have the opportunity to nip out and do a bit of social work, free of charge, for the council. How on earth are one parent families with young children meant to do this, whilst caring for their kids? And before all of the "they shouldn't have kids" brigade jump on the bandwagon, there are many who are in this situation through no fault of their own (abusive relationships, bereavement, abandonment)

9.21 A recipe for lazy council officers to do less work. Oh Mrs X doesn't like the hovel with the ceiling collapsing and the damp, great bump her to the bottom of the queue and send Mrs Y around.

9.23 Great a lovely long list of bodies to consult. One big ommission. The poor sods on the waiting list.

9.24 What can I possibly object to about this? Well I think that 12 weeks is far too short a time. They should have a proper independent study into the failings of the Barnet housing system, commissioned by experts, taking testamony from the people most affected by it, with public meetings in areas of social housing. Lets here what the poor sods who will suffer the policy have to say. There is no way that could be properly organised in 12 weeks.

9.25 This is just pure offence. They are saying that it's OK for staff to experiment with the lives of families? This makes me feel physically sick. They are going to disadvantage 50% of the people on the list whilst they conduct their experiment. Is this an April fool joke?

9.26 "The approach recommended will, in Future Shape Terms, deliver significant improvements". This is ominous. What about in real world terms? It will deliver "better allocations"? Better for who, I bet not the poor sods on the list. Better for the Tory councillors in their ivory towers and the senior council officers who can do less work for their money.

You can download the whole shameful document here
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=9350

You can tell Richard Cornelius what you think of it here -cllr.r.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk
and you can tell Council Leader Lynne Hillan to sack him here - leader@barnet.gov.uk

Barnet Council paper admits discrimination against Blacks and Asians

Barnet Council has admitted that it discriminates against black and asian people in a recently released Council briefing paper. The paper states the following :-

You can download the whole paper here - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=9350

So what do the council propose to do?

So if you've finally worked your way to the top of the waiting list after years of stress, tough luck. They are going to suspend the list pending its full abolition. There is one clear issue a lack of Council housing. Does the paper discuss how the reall problem may be addressed. Of course it doesn't.

The most damning passage was the following  :-

This is a complete scandal. The Tories have had eight years in charge. They have allowed the system to be discriminatory and not fit for purpose. They've even allowed one poor soul to apply 1,000 times for a home with no hope of getting one. How much does each bid cost the taxpayer? How much grief has she suffered and energy has she wasted? Has she received an apology?

The CEO of Barnet Council, Nick Walkley owes the people of Barnet an apology, as does Council Leader Lynne Hillan. All they are planning to do is abolish the list so there is no audit trail of their failure. This is a disgrace and a scandal. This is one subject which should be exposed nationally on BBC News