| |
SALFORD COUNCIL FOLLOWS TORY HOUSING POLICY ON STOCK TRANSFER
|
|
Star date: 30th October 2014 PUBLIC MONEY PRIVATE GAIN THE IDEOLOGICAL ATTACK ON SALFORD'S SOCIAL HOUSING The ballot on whether to transfer the remainder of Salford Council's housing stock ends on Monday November 3rd. If tenants vote `Yes' they will see the culmination of a massive ConDem Government attack on social housing in the city that will in future see more expensive rents, less secure and fixed term tenancies, and a social housing company acting like a private developer. The vote isn't necessarily about the present rights of tenants, it's about the rights of future generations of Salfordians... Full details here...
|
.jpg)
|
Have a look around social housing estates in Central and East Salford and, virtually everywhere, there's either work going on to do up houses and blocks, or the work has been recently completed. This year, there's been £17.3million budgeted by Salford Council to spend on social housing.
.
It's part of a four year £51.8million funding grant from the Government, agreed in 2011, to make Salford homes decent. At the time, the then Leader of Salford Council, John Merry, said: "This money will go a long way to help improve homes in the city and it's excellent news for residents." And Peter Styche, Chair of Salix Homes, crowed: "With this decent homes money we will be able to bring everybody's home up to a decent standard. This will make a big difference to a lot of people's lives, which is what we are here for." Indeed by the end of this financial year, over 90% of social homes still owned by Salford City Council will be declared `decent', with new kitchens, bathrooms, central heating, doors and windows having been installed*. Salix Homes hasn't paid for this work. It's public money. Yet, if the result of the ballot to transfer homes to Salix (which ends on November 3rd) is in favour, that private company will reap the benefits. While the meagre debate in Salford surrounding the transfer has centred on facts and figures, the much bigger picture is about an ideological attack on social housing by the ConDem Government with Salford's Labour Council complicit. And, while only those who live in Salix-managed properties are getting a vote on the transfer proposals, the result will affect the whole future of social housing in the city. It's a major shift in what social housing is all about. This was understood by a section of Salford's Labour group of councillors who had their own vote on the transfer proposals, in secret and away from the public gaze. Around one quarter of them voted against the proposals, the Salford Star understands, although only two councillors have since come out openly opposing the transfer. Still, while Salford's Labour politicians are queuing up, rightly, to support campaigns backing the NHS and keeping it in public hands, social housing, which is the other jewel in the Welfare State, doesn't seem to matter to three quarters of Labour councillors. Salford Council and Salix have been at pains to point out that existing tenants will see virtually no difference in their rights. But it's what's around the corner that is worrying campaigners and even Labour Party politicians... SOCIAL HOMES WILL NOT BE A HOME FOR LIFE Short term and restrictive tenancies will be a reality for new tenants of social homes. Salford Council's Business Case to the Government in favour of the transfer of its houses to Salix states that "Salix Homes would have greater freedom, for example, in the range and types of tenancies provided and locations/lettings policy", and that there will be the "development of a new tenancy policy" which will "work to change the view that social housing is a home for life towards being a resource for a particular time". The document adds that Salix will "Address circumstances where customers' income has improved and there is no longer a need for social housing" (see previous Salford Star article for more details click here). The new terms for tenants have come about as a result of the ConDem Government's housing `reforms'. Rather than oppose them, Salford Council states in its Tenancy Strategy..."The council welcomes the introduction of these flexibilities as they provide an opportunity to address issues such as under-occupation, improve stock turnover, and encourage the best use of Salford's limited affordable housing stock". The Council suggests a minimum five year, fixed term tenancy, while expressing its concerns "That any implementation of flexible tenancies does not have a negative impact on homeless and vulnerable households". MORE EXPENSIVE RENTS AND `ASSURED' TENANCIES There's going to be a change in the future where any house built with grants from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) will have to charge `affordable rent' rather than `social rent'... The misleadingly titled `affordable rent' is 80% of private market rent, and much more expensive than `social rent'. In its Tenancy Strategy, Salford Council "acknowledge that affordable rent is expected to increasingly be used to provide new rented affordable housing in Salford". The Council "also acknowledge that there is the potential that some existing social rented homes will also be converted to an affordable rent when they become available to be re-let". In other words, new social housing, re-lets and new tenancies will be exposed to more expensive rents and those who can afford to pay them may well get priority for housing over those who can't afford the new rents. Even property consultants DTZ state in a report that "there is a risk that lower priority households with greater resources may secure affordable housing before those in greater need". The DTZ report argues that "around 5% of the social rented stock becomes available for re-let each year so if it were possible to convert all of this to affordable rent the vast majority of affordable housing stock could be affordable rent in twenty years time. "In theory" it adds "there is a significant incentive to convert to affordable rent, increase rents and improve revenues but providers will need to balance the benefit of greater revenue from higher rents against possible increases in arrears and voids." And, as those `possible increases in arrears' become more apparent, the move from `secure tenancies' to `assured tenancies', which campaigners say will make it easier to evict, will seem massive. The Labour Housing Group, which "helps the Labour Party to develop effective housing policies for the future", produced Fifty Policies for Labour, one of which was that "Security of tenure should be restored for all social tenants so there is a basic requirement that a household cannot lose their home without the landlord's case being tested in court". So why is Salford's Labour Council backing a proposal to get rid of `security of tenure'? MARKET SALES Salix Homes, if it wins the ballot, as a social housing provider will be implementing a policy of `affordable rents' as well as actually selling houses it builds. As outlined in the previous Salford Star article (see here), on the Beechfarm/Poets Estate in Swinton, it wants to sell eighty houses and have 106 `affordable rent' properties in order that "property values can be maximised", so that it can "attract young working professionals" and make profits from building the houses at under £80,000 and selling them for between £90,000 and £110,000"... Market sales, more expensive rents, less secure tenancies and short term, flexible tenancies have been pushed by a ConDem Government which might not be in place by May next year. Indeed, the Labour Party might be back in power with a whole new set of housing principles. Yet Salford Council is rushing to get the transfer complete by March 2015 and thus wash its hands of having any council housing at all in the city. Salford Council's Tenancy Strategy is full of phrases about what it `expects' of housing providers, what it is `keen to ensure' they do, what it `would like to see' and what it `advocates'. ...Unfortunately, once the 8,800 properties it currently owns are handed over to Salix Homes in the likely event of a `Yes' vote next week, Salford Council will no longer have total control over the actions of Salix, as the whole ethos of social housing in Salford will change forever...
*Out of 8,800 properties owned by Salford Council and currently managed by Salix Homes, only 723 will be deemed `non-decent'. Still too many but certainly manageable to sort, given that the Council can now keep all the rents it collects to spend on doing them up. It reckons that the cost of getting these 723 properties decent would be £4.7million. The total cost of the transfer process, including the ballot, is £3.24million. *Salix Homes' latest accounts will not be published until November, after the ballot is concluded. See also previous Salford Star articles... * Is this a fair ballot? - click here * £3.24million cost of Transfer process - click here * Salford democracy at the heart of Transfer ballot - click here
|
|
|
|
Sharon Hooley wrote
at 07:06:35 on 04 November 2014 |
|
|
| Mr Chakotai has been pretty clear to us all yet only those that want to disagree have totally miss quoted him. Funny that isn't it? Seems to me those so called 'people' don't know what the difference is between a 'Theary' to an actual event. In no way or form was his Theary abusive, just a thought asvto why Cameron is so vile against the disabled and ill persons of society. To be honest I probably say something far more abusive as an example but I'm not in the mood for it at present.
On another note, the artical above says it all so why DR (Sharp-less) SHARPLES are you trying to confuse falks again? Trying to make out that when anyone coments against saying Yes to the privatisations that you then decide to basically call them liars. I've seen and heard the problems existing and mentioned by Mr Chakotai so would you like to bully me too, just as you have done to all the others up to now? Or is it that I am actually correct in saying this all sorded business has been one sided from the start and has been very misleading. All residents / voters should have the right to hear both sides and then vote as to what they see is beneficial. Well, it's been a total farce when it comes to trying to get answers from you Dr Sharpless.
As for the ex libdem person....ignorance is bliss I suppose, try READING properly and stop twisting things around to suit you.
And to Gaynor Heaton and Salford Star....Spot on!!!!! |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 21:51:45 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear "Ex Lib Dem" and "wrote". It is idiotic to hide behind an alias and then complain that people do not know whether you are a Man, Woman, or Something In-Between. It is also bad manners to miss-spell a name when it is in PRINT in front of you, unless you are Dyslexic, as you have miss-arranged the A and the O in Mr Chakotai's name. Also, do not criticise others without reading their actual statements. And, even more importantly, if you disagree, then PLEASE STATE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH and WHY. Furthermore, I am dismayed that you chose to specifically pick on Mr Chakotai, when numerous others, including myself have also strongly disagreed with Dr Sharples wholly inaccurate and miss-leading statements. I would also point out that you have made some inexplicable comments, such as " Don't try to discredit someone for doing their job and stating published facts." Do you really believe that because something has been published that makes it FACT? Dr Sharples comments on the Salford Star contradict what is on his own Consultancy Web Page. So, which is the Fact, and which is the Fiction? You have also stated "If you put your views on forums be prepared to be challenged". I can assure you that both Mr Chakotai and myself enjoy a sensible debate. We do not mind being challenged, but what exactly are you challenging? If you believe that it would be beneficial for the Tenants if Salix take over, then pray tell us why? We have after all given our solid, substantiated reasons why we believe it would be detrimental. I Look forward to reading your explicit reasons. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 21:51:38 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Well said Mandy Richards :) |
|
|
?
|
Mandy Richards wrote
at 21:15:12 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Now lets all draw a line under this, Steve Sharples will probably never visit this site or even this city again as the voting is now all but over. Lets all just forget about the fact that Salford council have indirectly paid him god knows how much to have all the citizens of this rotten borough rolled over the barrel. Lets not forget come May 2015 who employed the good doctor and lets make them pay the ultimate price. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 21:14:52 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear "Mr.", "Mrs","Ex - Lib", and "wrote", how am I to know what you are, when you show absolutely no backbone whatsoever, and write a twisted view of what you think I have relayed to the Salford Council Tenants. Let's start with what you have said. You stated that "You do not care if I have a mental or physical disability". Your words I believe. I certainly hope you work for the Council or a private organisation, as what you have said, is a breach of a disabled persons, "Protected Characteristics". Autism, which I have, makes you literal, compulsive, and a little outspoken. The Autism Strategy and The Autism Act first primary rule is "reasonable adjustments have to be made to cater for the interaction and communication needs of those with a Learning Disability and/or Autism". So you do in fact, have to act and behave differently when you communicate with a mentally disabled person. "Obviously your not a person of Learning". Secondly you misquoted me when you said I had no right to call Dr Sharples a Nazi. I called Dr Sharples a "Dictator". I said the Salford Council has now started its own Salford Nazi Regime. Completely different as I name Salford Council's actions as a "Nazi Regime". It's nice to know you read what I print. "Not". You then state "I waffle on and on". There are many Tenant Advocates that would strongly disagree with your statement. One of them being "Mrs Gaynor Heaton, to which you have not replied or commented on. "interesting" By your own actions you are obviously someone who has more of an issue with me, than what I actually write. If this is the case, "Grow Up". Everything Dr Sharples printed confused the hell out of the Autistic and Learning Disabled Community. Everything I wrote, was understood by everyone, regardless if they had a mental disability or not. "With the exception of you of course". "I still have not found a way to cater for those who suffer from ignorance".You must be a fabulous reader. As you can judge a book just by reading the cover. In this case, judging by you own statements, you obviously did not read fully, any of my comments. Therefore by your own actions and definitions, you "Discriminated Against The Mentally and Physically Disabled","thus disallowing for a persons protected Characteristics","you misquote beautifully", "protect well paid professionals who mislead the Salford Council Tenants", "confuse those who are mentally disabled with waffle", "and hide your identity", "because you have no backbone", "stiff upper lip","and/or", "you are a coward". What a fabulous bunch of friends Dr Sharples has. He must be blessed to have such a fabulous friend like you. Lol :) Your statement is personal, and obviously you have mental health issues. If your in the Salford Area I suggest you contact either Cromwell House or Ramsgate House, as they are centres who help the mentally ill and impaired. Please refrain from you writing preposterous and ill informed statements. If you do disagree with me, that cool, I like a debate as long as it is based on fact, not fictitious rubbish. I'm sure Gaynor Heaton, and Mrs Hooley, who are both Independent Tenant Advocates, will have something to say about what you have wrote concerning me. My guess is you won't comment about them, because whoever you are, your issue is with me. That is why no one will listen to your rants and ridiculous half baked statements, and certainly why no one listened to a word Dr Sharples said on the Salford Star. If this is not personal, then explain to me, and the readers, why you have only commented on me, and not the other 11 people who also disliked "Mr Sharples"? My advice, grow up, find yourself a better set of friends, and read before you write. Huge hugs, from Mr. T.J. Chakotai x x x x x x x |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 18:30:18 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Mr Chokatai, you assume I am a man which yet again ways that I take your comments with a pinch of salt. I do not know Dr Sharples, another incorrect assumption. The fact that you state that you have a mental and physical disability to me means nothing. I treat everyone the same, I discriminate against no one. If you put your views on forums be prepared to be challenged without falling back on the don't disagree with me because I am disabled. In effect that is what you have just said. |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 15:14:12 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear "Ex Lib Dem", I am quite confused by your wild and incomprehensible statements about Mr Chakotai. He has NEVER stated that anyone whose opinions differ from his is a Salford Nazi! Mr Chakotai has never been offensive about those who wish to Vote YES. He has only commented about those who, like Dr Sharples, try to undermine and belittle everyone. Dr Sharples repeatedly states that I have miss-quoted statements despite the fact that I copied and pasted the quotes from Dr Sharples own Web pages! Mr Chakotai's comments about Salford Nazi's are regarding people pulling down any NO posters, even from his own front door. Taking down No Posters is Undemocratic, Offensive, and certainly is not being Neutral or Independent, and is plainly acting as a Dictator. Mr Chakotai, along with myself, has only ever stated Proven Facts about why we believe that Transfer to Salix would be detrimental. I only Hope that the Tenants don't find out the hard way, when they are Evicted, or cannot Pass the Tenancy on to a Spouse, or Rents and Service Charges Increase, or find Unfair Clauses in their Tenancy Agreement etc. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 15:13:51 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Ex-Lib-Dem, I see your friends with Dr Sharples. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I feel the need to disagree with it. If you have read the comments left by Dr Sharples, on previous stories, you will see that this man attacked and put down many Salford Council Tenants, including several vulnerable adults. My comments are not offensive, they are a matter of fact. The Salford Council/Salix Homes did rip the "No Posters" down, in Canon Hussey Court, at Dr Sharples request, thus breaching the right to "Free Speech", and "Democracy". Dr Sharples also tried to mislead the tenants concerning the "Privitisation Of Council Stock". (please read comments left by The Salford Star that confirm this). Dr Sharples also refused to answer the questions put to him by Salford Council tenants, and just waffled about statistics. In conclusion this man waffled on, at the tax payers expense, while misleading council tenants, insulted and belittled vulnerable adults, and called everyone who commented "Infactual" or "Biased". So Mr Ex-Lib, you don't think someone who breaches the human rights of others, and misleads them, in order to get paid a large sum of money, is a "Nazi". "Interesting". Obviously you don't learn from history". This man was not doing his job, he was facilitating an unlawful action against Salford Council Tenants, in order to get paid a large sum of money. So I find your comment "Offensive", Ex-Lib. Also if you bothered to read my last comments, I stated to all the tenants that "It's does not matter how you vote, as long as you vote", To ensure the housing management you receive", "is right for you". Therefore Ex-Lib, the truely offensive person is not me, but your good friend, "Dr Sharples". So how can you state everything I say is just waffle? Obviously "Ex-Lib", you have not read all of the comments left on the Salford Star, by Dr Sharples. I would, in the future, request you read all of the information presented to you, so your comments are more "precise and factual". Please Cease and Desist in trying to destroy the credibility of a "Independant Tenants Advocate", who by the way, is a mentally and physically disabled person, and gets paid nothing, to defend the "vulnerable from abuse". I would also appreciate the using of your real name instead of "Ex Lib". This shows a lack of "Backbone" and "Stiff Upper Lip". If your going to put a controversial comment on The Salford Star, concerning your personal opinions of a member of the public, then have the decency to put your name to it. |
|
|
?
|
Ex Lib Dem wrote
at 06:31:35 on 03 November 2014 |
|
|
| Mr Chockatai I find a lot of your comments quite offensive. Basically anyone who has an opinion that differs to yours is a salford nazi? Lots of what you say is just emotive waffle in my humble opinion. Don't try to discredit someone for doing their job and stating published facts.
|
|
|
?
|
Prisoner Irlam wrote
at 14:02:12 on 01 November 2014 |
|
|
| Sadly Dr Sharples , i disagree with your opinions , I have been fighting opinions like yours for years! Let me tell you this Rents are Rocketing in the privately rented sector, so how decent people that maybe easly hoodwinked feel when they were had over for the price of a £1200 kitchen for annually above inflation rent houses! ! ! This fiasco stinks ! ! ! Try and give me cast iron reassurances this won't be the case. |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 23:02:38 on 31 October 2014 |
|
|
| Just a quick update for all Salford Council Tenants. After Informing Dr Sharples, that Canon Hussey Court still had it's "No to Privatisation Posters" on the wall, I have come home to find that Salix Homes employees have taken the posters down, under the orders of, "Guess Who", Dr Sharples. Even my yellow poster which I received from George Tapp, which was pinned on my front door has been taken down. So it's now official, Salford is under the rule of "Dictators", where the average Salfordian is told what to think, act, and do. Welcome to the "Salford Nazi Regime". It would seem that Dr Sharples, and his band of "Money Grabbing Fat Cats", are not allowing the people of Salford to hear both sides of the story. Technically this means that anyone who is a Salford Council Tenant, can now write to the Local Government, and state that "the privatisation vote is unlawful". There has also been a huge "Human Rights Breach", as the Salford Council are blocking the rights of tenants, who appropriately appose the "Privatisation of Salix Homes", thus blocking the right to "Free Speech". Dr Sharples has now proved that he can not be trusted and certainly is capable of misleading Salford Council Tenants, while breaching their "Basic Human Rights". For this reason I would urge Salford Council Tenants, to say "No to Dr Sharples", and certainly vote "No To The Privatisation Of Salford Council Homes". |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 18:32:10 on 31 October 2014 |
|
|
| Oh but it does matter what you said Dr Sharples. You have managed to turn the "yes" tenants into the "No" tenants. You have humiliated and patronised every person who has left a comment on the Salford Star. Once again you have used what I have said in previous comments to your own ends.You have managed to upset most of the readers, who have left comments on The Salford Star. May I recommend that the ITA communicate directly with tenants via mailed letters, and cease using the Salford Star as a forum to mislead Salford Council Tenants. Yours Sincerely, Mr. Tahir Chakotai. (Independant Tenants Advocate) |
|
|
?
|
White wrote
at 16:55:29 on 31 October 2014 |
|
|
| Just so that we know;
is Dr. Steve Sharples the Director of PS Consultants, the social housing and urban regeneration company he founded in 1995? |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 12:42:49 on 31 October 2014 |
|
|
| The stock transfer ballot closes at 12noon on Monday November 3rd. In the end it doesn't matter what is said by me as part of the ITA team, the Salford Star, or those with a personal axe to grind about Salix or the Council. All that matters now is that tenants make up their own minds and exercise their vote. If you haven't yet voted you will almost certainly now have to vote by text, phone, or internet to be absolutely sure vote will be received in time. |
|
|
?
|
down trodden wrote
at 12:42:37 on 31 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dr Steve Sharples, independent my arse, who pays his fees and who get a big fat bonus if the YES group win. |
|
|
?
|
tom nolan wrote
at 22:28:27 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| dr Steven Sharpels have you suffered at the hands of Salix homes answer yes or no... |
|
|
?
|
Steve wrote
at 22:28:23 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| It's unbelievable that the transfer is costing over £3million! I wonder how much of this is going to consultants. Once the stock has been transferred out of the public sector accountability will be even less than it is now. If we look at the other sectors that have been privatised prices always go up so who is to say that won't happen with housing. Once all housing is in the private sector the market WILL drive prices up, it is in the markets interest to make sure that happens. When that happens how will it be paid for! Yet again Salford Council have been fooled into thinking this will save money in the long term by their dubious advisors who so often have vested interests. I just hope all tenants VOTE NO! If houses are falling below the decent homes standard and Salford Council believes this will only get worse then surely it should be using it's capital budgets on getting them up to this standard rather than spending it on fountains and rugby clubs! This is yet another important piece of journalism following in the tradition of the great polemical journalists such as John Pilger, Paul Foot and Noam Chomsky. Keep it up ;) |
|
|
?
|
Tahir Chakotai wrote
at 22:27:28 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dear Dr Sharples, as always, your inappropriate conduct is confusing me. You state that the Salford Star is printing information that is incorrect. You also state that The Salford Star is fabricating documents to ensure tenants vote "No" to the privatisation of council properties. You also state that The Salford Star is biased. Therefore if the Salford Star is truly a rubbish publication that fabricates the facts, why do you care what it states, and why do you feel the need to comment every single time. I will tell you why. You comment because you know the Salford Star is printing the facts. You also comment on the Salford Star because you have a personality disorder, which makes you feel that you are more superior than your peers, Another reason you need to comment is because you seem to feel the need to control the minds and environments of others, to ensure they only think what you tell them to think. You also comment on The Salford Star because you feel the need to always be right, even when you really know your wrong. As stated in my pervious comments, those who try to control their environment, and forcefully enforce their views on others, is what the prime minister Churchill described as a "Dictator". This statement was made when "Hitler" and the Germans stated an act of war on Britain. Does this sound familiar Dr Sharples? Right or wrong, everyone on this planet has a right to free speech. You have absolutely no right to enforce your half baked statements on anyone. Please remember you told everyone in you previous statements, that you agreed with Salix Homes employees, ripping down the "No To Privitisation Posters", thus blocking the right of free will and speech, to those who live in Salford Council Properties. Why on earth should anyone listen to you, when your incapable of acting like a rational and compassionate human being. "You are a dictator". Until you provide this so called evidence you keep quoting from, no one is going to believe a word you say. And may I advise that you stop slurring the views and opinions given by The Salford Star. This man has dedicated his life to helping others, and has produced a publication, that gives the average Salfordian man and woman, a forum to voice their concerns. It is not a publication that allows the views of a "Dictator" to take president over the views of Salford citizens. Frankly I believe that the Salford Star is being a little "Over Charitable" by allowing your comments to appear on the Salford Star. But I am aware that the editor believes everyone has a right to express their opinions, even you Dr Sharples. I will end with what I always say Dr Sharples. "I like you writing on the Salford Star because the more you write", "the more council tenants will vote "No" to the privatisation of Salix Homes". As always, carry on the good work Dr Sharples. |
|
|
?
|
Gaynor Heaton wrote
at 22:26:50 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| Dr Sharples keeps quoting that there is little difference between Secure and Assured Tenancy, so for information please read the following brief summery of some of the differences:
The main difference is that Secure tenants have more rights and extra security from eviction compared to Assured tenants. Secure tenants have better succession rights and other additional rights such as Assignment and the right to repair and improve. Secure tenants also have Fair rent set by the Fair rent office. Assured tenants have target rent set by a government formula based on inflation, location, bedroom size and other factors |
|
|
?
|
Salford Star wrote
at 18:04:48 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| See Dr Sharples comment below... On point 1 - take it up with Labour Housing Group. On point 2, this is an aside - Salix tenants have been baraged with propaganda on the point you raised. On point 3, notice you didn't mention City West with its huge surpluses and Fat Cat execs. And, overall, glad you agree that the agenda is market sales, more expensive rents, and short term, flexible tenancies. Well done! |
|
|
?
|
Anthony Dowd wrote
at 17:28:28 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| One sentence provides ALL the reasons for tenants to VOTE NO:
"Market sales, more expensive rents, less secure tenancies and short term, flexible tenancies"
Why take the risk? |
|
|
?
|
Dr Steve Sharples wrote
at 17:28:22 on 30 October 2014 |
|
|
| 1. The proposed transfer of council homes does not 'get rid of security of tenure'. As has been explained to you many times, but which you persist in not acknowledging, security of tenure is a legal principle that underpins both council secure tenancies and housing association assured non-shorthold tenancies. Neither type of tenancy may be ended by a landlord without a court order granted on the basis of proven grounds for possession ('security of tenure'). There are indeed different such grounds between the two types of tenancy. The principle of security of tenure is, however,common to both. 2. The issue about the Decent Homes Standard is not simply about attaining it. There may indeed be only 723 properties currently below it in the Salix managed stock, but the problem all social landlords have (and you can't seem to grasp) is that building components age. A component that is 10 years old now may have a life of 15 years and will need replacing by 2019. Keeping all homes at the standard.as all components age and continually need to be replaced,is at least as daunting and expensive as getting them there in the first place. Since you claim to have confidential documents about the transfer why don't you quote the parts that show that if the council retains the homes,and with the reduced investment available to them, 49% of homes would have slipped back into 'non-decency' by the end of the 30 year Business Plan.3. Nothing that we have seen suggests that Salix will be a 'private company' as you also claim. The fact that something is not publicly owned doesn't automatically mean it is a private company. On that basis Oxfam, Age Concern, and the Salford Star would have to be a 'private company'. Most stock transfer associations are community benefit societies (as are many charities and community and voluntary sector groups), and given that it is committed to exploring mutual models Salix is far more likely to be legally incorporated using that model - but of course that wouldn't fit the conspiracy theory that characterises how you present this issue? So, once again, light on journalism, long on polemic. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
