In the 1990s American comedienne Rita Rudner brought the house down when she revealed that every time a wino asked her; 'Do you have any spare change?' she replied 'I don't know. I haven't lived my life yet!'
Now it seems an increasingly hollow joke. On this side of the pond the dignified gentleman tramp of my childhood sporting the tired cords with string tied around his boot tops who never bothered anyone and lived in a tent on a grassy island where two motorways converged has been replaced by ever growing numbers of homeless of all ages, nationalities and hues in all manner of doorways and alleys, some making an attempt to earn their living with a painting, a sand dog or the playing of a musical instrument, many not.
No sooner do you give some change to a homeless person in Brighton than you encounter another one just a few yards along the street. Donor fatigue sets in fast. More and more locals skip their morning or evening constitutional and take the bus, stricken by moral paralysis as to how to react. I myself have been through many personal policies - only donate to those who attempt to earn a living, only donate to those with a dog, keep a pocket of 20p pieces and give one to each. Don't subsidise anyone's obvious drink or drug habit (if they want to kill themselves I don't want to be an accessory). Give them a sandwich rather than money. You name it, I've given it a go, but somehow have never arrived at a satisfactory personal policy.
A proliferation of Big Issue sellers have appeared who get shirty if you try to buy their 'last' Big Issue but still want the money and are clearly using the magazine not as intended, to help them get back on their feet, but as a begging tool.
Everyone has noticed how much worse the problem has become in the last few years, though there are a few mitigating circumstances in Brighton. A number of homeless were apparently given one-way tickets here to clear them out of the way for the 2012 London Olympics and have never gone back, or have come of their own accord believing (or having been told) that homeless services are better here. Others have (according to my GP who also treats the homeless) taken the view 'If I'm going to be homeless, I may as well be homeless by the sea' evidently not considering that a seaside area may be subject to more regular storms and high winds than inland, particularly out of season.
Earlier this month three homeless people died in the same week. A makeshift shrine to them soon appeared at the foot of the clock tower. The Big Issue seller outside Waitrose died. Gareth. I had assumed he was an old man with his greying hair and beard. Shockingly I read a tribute on the adjacent wall which (if accurate) showed him to be a mere 6 months older than me!
It is rumoured that 50 homeless individuals have died in the city in the last three years, though it is hard to pin down the facts, let alone how many deaths were a direct result of 'homelessness' (ie exposure) or other factors such as drug overdose, suicide, accident or misadventure.
One homeless advocate I met reckoned '1000 homeless people sleep on Brighton's streets each night.' The Brighton Argus reported '79' only days later. There is no agreement on how many hostel spaces are available or not, though the Salvation Army said in a recent meeting I was present at that arrangements have been made to accommodate additional homeless in three local churches temporarily if the temperature should fall below zero for three nights consecutively. Sometimes the figures move around for a reason - ie higher figures mean homeless charities are more likely to get projects funded, but the whole shifting sand nature of the homeless problem makes it hard to get a proper handle on it. Emotive ads on London trains showing young women who apparently risk sleeping with strangers just to have a bed for the night are said to be an exaggeration. Very young women are seldom seen on the capital's streets late at night because they are the easiest to find and get off the streets.
St Mungo's have just taken over Brighton's council contract to help rough sleepers and are said to visit them all every night to reach out to them. Personally I have yet to see any teams checking on the homeless late at night, though the regular gentleman outside the co-op seems to have a duvet which regularly changes colour.
Several years ago it was widely advocated by a national homelessness charity that the homeless should be offered a 'hand up, not a hand out' and we should all give our money to the charities who help the homeless, not the homeless themselves as that just kept them on the streets and discouraged them from seeking help. The charity has gone quiet since then but two local PSCO's echoed this sentiment the other week. 'It's tragic, but the last thing you want to do is give them money or blankets - you're just keeping them on the street. You're not doing them any favours. We see them day in day out. We know.'
Conversely, even if there were enough affordable homes to go round for those with day jobs (73% of the under 35s are now priced out of the housing market), let alone the homeless, many homeless are high dependency individuals with serious addiction and mental health issues who need a high level of support and treatment. Put them in their own flat and they often can't cope with the responsibility as has been proven in many such initiatives around the country. A supported hostel or halfway house (preferably one which welcomes pets) is the real first base need for most before working towards long-term independent living.
The other danger is that if (by some miracle) the homeless are given free housing in one area, it encourages an influx to that area, or for those one or two steps away from the streets, (in a short-term AST let room in an HMO for example) to intentionally render themselves homeless to join them if there is little or no prospect of securing long-term housing any other way. In Brighton rents are spiralling out of control to the extent that working class families were recently advised by the council to seek homes outside of Brighton. This is not just about shortage of homes though, but the fact that so many homes which are built in the area are immediately snapped up as second homes, holiday homes or investment buys and in an open market, there is no legal means for our council to ring-fence new developments for locals in housing need, nor obligation to ensure they are 'affordable' in the true sense of the word.
But to get back to the homeless, there are certain groups whom the military should be forced to demonstrate a Duty of Care towards - ie all the ex-servicemen who have been mentally of physically damaged as a result of doing their duty for their country. Moreover the military have many former army facilities which they could easily utilise to provide health services, training and housing for ex servicemen.
I myself lived in an HMO (shared house) until the age of 36 and was once photographed in the Daily Mail letters column holding a tongue-in-cheek 'Middle Class Homeless, Please Help' sign to demonstrate my point regarding the hopelessness of many of my generation in getting onto the housing ladder. Poor taste perhaps, but after 12 years of no movement on my local council housing list, I felt quite entitled at the time. Little did I know how much worse things would become in a few short years, albeit happily in my own case I managed to secure a Park Home (static caravan) where I lived very contentedly until moving in with my now-partner.
However housing remains a topic close to my heart and I really want to understand every aspect of it, but preferably without emotion getting in the way of how to help on a practical and meaningful level. It is all very well to be a bleeding heart liberal or do-gooder and these people do do good - up to a point. But is this the most effective way to help rather than trying to understand the full picture and all the strands that contribute and all the potential knock-on effects? On the contrary, I think we need to have our eyes wide open in dealing with this crisis. For example our country is now considering admitting 3000 apparently homeless and rootless youngsters from eastern Europe - but are they? Many are said to be young adults masquerading as children to get in or being used as 'trojan horses' by their families so that once they are allowed to stay in Britain their entire families will be able obtain leave to join them.
On a final note I find the psychology of homelessness fascinating. Someone sits in the street, often next to the trash, and decides they are worth nothing. That is the energy vibe they then project to the world. That is the mirror vibe they attract. Agreement with their own opinion of themselves as worthless and therefore public avoidance. Either that or pity. Probably most people have been tempted at their lowest ebb to give up on the daily struggle and sink into the gutter, but it is certainly a bad choice/strategy for anyone who wants to change their luck. The further you sink in life, the further up you have to reach to claw your way back out of the abyss - not easy if there is no self-worth or self-respect to propel an individual back in an upwards direction. I have come to the conclusion that recovery from any calamity in life starts with the decision: 'I will not let ____ ruin my life.' Which may not solve the nation's housing crisis, but can solve many others if donkey-strength stubbornness ensues.
Showing posts with label housing crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing crisis. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 January 2016
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Everyone's a NIMBY when it's THEIR back yard!
Having ripped out the hearts of our towns and cities with unsympathetic and ill-considered planning, roads and out-of-town shopping developments, often outmoded within a few short years, and often leading to social isolation and social problems in addition to lack of joined-up transport and facility-provision for citizens, the planners of the latter half of the 20th Century and the first part of the 21st Century have amply demonstrated they are not to be trusted with their piecemeal and profit-led ways of deciding what is best for us, let alone making irreversible decisions about the future of this country. Nor is the 'market' to be trusted as any arbiter of taste or 'stakeholder' in and visionary for the long-term.Planners in conjunction with private developers are now leaning on the government to speed up the planning process, lessen their contributions to local communities in return for being allowed to build in them and water down Green Belt legislation in the questionable name of 'sustainable and affordable housing' and easing the housing 'crisis', hot on the heels of whole swathes of the Victorian north being bulldozed under the misnomer of the 'Pathfinder' Scheme several years ago in favour of unaffordable blocks of characterless apartments. You may recall the famous documentary of several years ago illustrating that a typical Liverpool 1880s terrace (only a street away from John Lennon's childhood home) could be refurbished with all mod-cons for as little as £20k to provide genuinely family-friendly and affordable regeneration WITH the character that 75% of the population profess to love, rather than a small-windowed overpriced human battery-chicken style apartment that they struggle to get their furniture into. All this even without getting the 100% VAT-free perk enjoyed by new-builds but not, for some bizarre reason, restoration projects.
Suffice to say that very few new schemes proposed are genuinely affordable and sustainable, not least considering the carbon footprint required to construct them and the fact that few modern buildings have an anticipated shelf-life of longer than 55 years. However once a piece of land has been built on, it seldom if ever reverts back to greenfield, but is ever after branded 'brownfield', so even though we might feel grateful that few of todays' carbuncles will still be standing 55 years from now, they will most certainly be replaced by other carbuncles.
Aside from the original intention of providing a 'green lung' around each city, town and village following the success of the first 'garden cities' and recognition of the human need to have green spaces, here are the officially-stated aims of green belts, instigated nationwide in 1955, but still as relevant today;
- To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
- To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
- To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
- Providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population
- Providing opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas
- The retention of attractive landscapes and the enhancement of landscapes, near to where people live
- Improvement of damaged and derelict land around towns
- The securing of nature conservation interests.
- The retention of land in agricultural, forestry and related use.
From a personal perspective I firmly believe that human beings have an innate need to be surrounded by beauty, both architectural and natural. There is a reason you do not observe coach parties of tourists flocking to Luton for example. They are simply not attracted to it. Bar the freak characterful building which has managed to dodge the wrecking ball, it is ugly and even repulsive to them as a tourist or holiday destination. Most people who live in such a town or visit it do so because they have either family or business in the area or because it is a bit cheaper to live there than the town or city they commute to for work from there. If they want to see beauty they visit Bath or Buxton or a University town, or a seaside resort, or maybe a tiny tucked away village which has hardly changed since the advent of electricity.
Just as I want to see the nationwide provision of consistent high-quality palliative care for all, sooner than see 'right to die' legislation passed for those with serious illnesses, I would rather see legislation passed to order all empty homes, derelict buildings and sites be brought back into use before planners are allowed to run amok with their schemes all over our green spaces and special places.
The government might also like to consider imposing sensible immigration measures in line with their European neighbours among other measures to reduce housing pressure such as encouraging the elderly to trade down in property size and more companionship and sharing of living spaces by those of all generations, not to mention high taxes on 'second homes' which could be used to finance such initiatives. Fewer people living alone would also help that other social ill, loneliness, which has been linked to depression and all manner of other mental and physical health issues.
Glossary:
NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard - a prejudice which MPs and local councilors are quick to accuse ordinary citizens of every time they object to a new development, but which they themselves are the first to turn into the moment there is any new building threat within a mile of their own homes.
SUSTAINABLE - a somewhat meaningless term since ALL new-builds now have to comply with strict regulations re insulation and energy-loss prevention measures, if not quite incorporate a wind turbine on the roof. Moreover, 'sustainable' does not seem to take into account the carbon footprint required to construct the property, utilise that piece of land for the purpose, particularly if formerly greenfield, and the short lifespan of the property anticipated (55 years)
AFFORDABLE - anything more than the 1970s/80s calculation of three and a half times an individual's/couple's salary or swallowing more than 33.5% of their monthly income in household outgoings. In other words the vast majority of housing which is not a caravan or canal boat is decidedly NOT affordable to most and may well be unsustainable, resulting in breadline or debt-laden living and eventual repossession. Though this doesn't bother the banks, as having made a tidy profit out of the first unfortunate home owners, they can simply put the property up for auction and move onto the next.
REGENERATION - Demolition of or stripping out of anything historic or characterful to make way for quick-buck, cram-them-in, neo-Brutalism.
HOUSING CRISIS - the building industry is not making enough money.
Just as I want to see the nationwide provision of consistent high-quality palliative care for all, sooner than see 'right to die' legislation passed for those with serious illnesses, I would rather see legislation passed to order all empty homes, derelict buildings and sites be brought back into use before planners are allowed to run amok with their schemes all over our green spaces and special places.
The government might also like to consider imposing sensible immigration measures in line with their European neighbours among other measures to reduce housing pressure such as encouraging the elderly to trade down in property size and more companionship and sharing of living spaces by those of all generations, not to mention high taxes on 'second homes' which could be used to finance such initiatives. Fewer people living alone would also help that other social ill, loneliness, which has been linked to depression and all manner of other mental and physical health issues.
To my mind, this whole issue about the future of building is almost public referendum territory, so many of us does it potentially affect. To which end, please sign the government's Rethink Proposed Planning Reform petition here if you agree.
Meantime...
Glossary:
NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard - a prejudice which MPs and local councilors are quick to accuse ordinary citizens of every time they object to a new development, but which they themselves are the first to turn into the moment there is any new building threat within a mile of their own homes.
SUSTAINABLE - a somewhat meaningless term since ALL new-builds now have to comply with strict regulations re insulation and energy-loss prevention measures, if not quite incorporate a wind turbine on the roof. Moreover, 'sustainable' does not seem to take into account the carbon footprint required to construct the property, utilise that piece of land for the purpose, particularly if formerly greenfield, and the short lifespan of the property anticipated (55 years)
AFFORDABLE - anything more than the 1970s/80s calculation of three and a half times an individual's/couple's salary or swallowing more than 33.5% of their monthly income in household outgoings. In other words the vast majority of housing which is not a caravan or canal boat is decidedly NOT affordable to most and may well be unsustainable, resulting in breadline or debt-laden living and eventual repossession. Though this doesn't bother the banks, as having made a tidy profit out of the first unfortunate home owners, they can simply put the property up for auction and move onto the next.
REGENERATION - Demolition of or stripping out of anything historic or characterful to make way for quick-buck, cram-them-in, neo-Brutalism.
HOUSING CRISIS - the building industry is not making enough money.
On a less cynical note, the 'housing crisis' does not account for a great many properties which exist, but which few people can afford to buy and empty properties for which there is currently no proper legislation in place to bring into use, if only temporarily (some properties in the first category being too expensive for anyone to afford can end up languishing empty for months and even years, as the owners wait for the market to 'pick up').
*The carbuncle featured at the top of this post is even worse than it looks as it actually blocks a spectacular sea and cliff view at the far end of the Hastings sea front - a view which should have enjoyed legal protection from such.*
*The carbuncle featured at the top of this post is even worse than it looks as it actually blocks a spectacular sea and cliff view at the far end of the Hastings sea front - a view which should have enjoyed legal protection from such.*
Friday, 19 October 2007
The Ladders (& Snakes) of Housing
To The Lighted House'Five hundred pounds a year
And a room of ones' own'
Was Virginia Woolfs’
recipe for happiness.
Then she saw the small ads
For rooms among the Spires
Worthy of writers.
Five hundred pounds a month,
(excl, and broadband extra)
Filled her pockets with stones
And walked into the nearest river.
Perhaps God had a room going
In one of his many mansions
A little bit cheaper…
© LS King 2006
Photo by
Labels:
housing crisis,
Oxford,
poem,
Virginia Woolf pastiche
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Beware the Garden Gobblers & Allotment Alligators
By co-incidence two concurrent documentaries last Friday - The Insider on Channel 4 and Gardener's World on BBC2 highlighted the hidden scandal of the 'great garden grab', or how thanks to John Prescott (remember him?) private gardens up and down the country have been re-branded 'brownfield' land and therefore fair game to be built upon with little contest. 30,000 new homes are being built on these gardens per year, reducing vital urban 'green lung' capacity, squeezing wildlife out and promoting flood risk with additional pressure on local drainage, notwithstandi
ng the social effects on the existing community and architectural eyesores often ensuing.As if this weren't bad enough the legal protection once afforded to allotments has also been eroded with 1.5million dwindling to 297,000 since WWII.
The Insider's Matt James visited century-old Manor Gardens in south-east London threatened with transformation into a footpath for the 4-week 2012 Olympics, and spoke to long-time users who literally believed that their lives would be curtailed without their daily fix of these mature allotments, the homegrown produce and the comradeship of their fellow gardening enthusiasts. An ancient oak 'ring' in Solihull threatened by a gigantic Asda development much against the local residents' wishes, also featured.
Genuine 'brownfield' land is last on the list for developers apparently, owing to the costs of industrial decontamination and removal of old foundations and rubbish.
Whilst I appreciate there is a need for housing growth (particularly of the affordable variety which ironically, most of this sneaky land-rustling is not even contributing to), I am appalled that the housing shortage is being used as a big fatuous excuse to raze allotments and gardens with no thought as to the future urban legacy this will bequeath, let alone the past legacy lost. And I comment as someone who will need a long-term permanent home myself in due course. In addition, the threat to derelict historic buildings of 'mysterious fires' and being 'helped' to their ends, even when seemingly listed also appals me as a favourite site-grabbing wheeze on the part of developers.
Why is there no compunction to leave all the above as a very LAST resort when all other options have been exhausted, and force developers to tackle real brownfield sites first? The government could always subsidise clearance costs as they subsidise so many other industries.
After the development of all available (and genuine) brownfield land we then have housing options such as the following;-
Bad 60's & 70's monoliths, depressing and grey to look at, concrete fatigued and often a complete mis-use of land, which are crying out to be 'regenerated' into something more wonderful to behold and pleasurable to inhabit.
Disused buildings on every NHS hospital site which could feasibly be restored or redeveloped to provide short-medium term accommodation at modest cost for NHS staff, particularly those embarking on their careers who need to build up their savings for mortgage deposits. This in turn frees up nearby private rental accommodation for others.
All car parks to be multi-storey or underground to release land. Or else, attractive and practical housing built (on stilts) above ground level car parks.
Innovative Scandinavian solutions to hide ugly 80's railway stations or bad bus stations (heard the one about the city which created a piece of 'flyover' land over their railway station and covered it in houses, flats, workspaces and PARKS? (link soon)
Larger companies providing their own hostels for short-term staff needs (as a hotel in Oxford has already done, with a bus company soon to follow)
Re-enervation (rather than re-generation) of areas of the North with SENSITIVE planning of business-relocation and any additional/renovated housing needed to help alleviate housing and business pressures on the bottom-heavy South and provide new opportunities to towns and cities short of local employment.
More controversially I'd also like to see the end of all post 1930's bungalows in my area (as and when they become available for demolition), as they really are a wanton waste of land in a high-density area/age, and if they are not of any particular historic note, why not? However the garden areas would remain as intact as possible even when the bungalows were exchanged for attractive medium density community housing, which could still be 'cottagey' in style. Not that it's difficult to improve on most bungalow designs!
Until then fellow garden and allotment warriors - get your greenspace designated an 'Area of Scientific Interest' and keep painting those toads purple! Failing that let's make the eighth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Potting Shed of Doom (sorry, a cynical ploy for maximum blog hits there folks, but hey, this issue needs maximum publicity!)
Labels:
allotment,
brownfield,
garden,
grab,
housing crisis
Monday, 6 August 2007
Housing a Crisis
While the factors of increased immigration combined with a slowdown in house-building are oft-parroted as the causes of the housing shortage in this country, few pundits seem to have much to say about the biggest reason of all for the UK housing shortage - namely the breakdown of family life, marriage and the concept of live-in relationships in general and the fact that virtually every time a household breaks up an extra household is created.Is it considered too 'judgemental' or 'Nanny-stateish' to mention? Or more to the point is it the case that if it were acknowledged, someone would then be obliged to do something about it? Other than the lavish £20 a week incentive to marry suggested by the Tories (which might just about pay for the wedding day by the time of most divorces!).
Or might government acknowledgement of the problem lead to a more uncomfortable line of questioning straying dangerously into the psychological, aka why, in an age where it's theoretically never been easier to be gay, straight, bi or just housemates with a global pool of partners/friends to choose from, and with the majority of us claiming we don't want to be lonely, are so many of us paradoxically opting for our own front doors?
And is there a parallel between this growing preference and that other selfish desire - to each cocoon ourselves in our very own tin box transport rather than rely on communal transport or live closer to where we work?
Not that public transport currently makes itself amenable or even a viable option for many, granted.
However neither of these choices sits well with the green remit. Indeed there are few choices more environmentally-hostile one can make than living alone and owning one's own car. Sharing and co-operation would seem to be the only green and future-proof options. Guardian: Solo Living's Eco Threat BBC Single Households 'waste energy'
I speak as a paid-up hypocrite incidentally, fully guilty of both. Which isn't to say I actively chose to remain unmarried or 'put my career first' as the euphemism goes - and I keep the gratuitous driving to a minimum, own few gadgets, and re-cycle to the best of my ability. But after a life that didn't quite work out in the way I might originally have hoped and two stressful housemates with 'problems' in succession, I needed a break from living with 'other people', whatever the financial stretch. Hopefully one day I will be able to share my space, and even my life again, fully. But for now I relish the sanity and peace of my own space and the chance to re-charge the inner batteries!
But all this is by the by. What is 'other peoples' excuse? Do all single people have problems that render them unable to live harmoniously with one another? Why do so many relationships and marriages break down so quickly? Do we all give up too easily these days or are we dizzied by the potential global 'sweetie shop' of partner choice to the extent that we never make a full decision about or commitment to anyone, on the basis that we might meet another we like even better just round the corner? Perhaps the pervasive influence of drink and drugs have had a greater effect on societal breakdown than anyone dare admit. Certainly I like to hope I've always worked at most relationships and entered into them with hope in my heart that they might be for life and not just for Christmas!
It seems that social engineers as well as civil engineers will be needed to construct a more cohesive society, and long-term happiness and how to attain it might also need to be key ingredients in the housing-for-all equation, if never quite developed into a science as exact as floor loading!
For my poem 'Great Britain 2030' which relates to much of the above, visit Oliver's Poetry
Labels:
green,
housing crisis,
reasons,
relationship breakdown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
