BrandNewGuy

Let's do it.

"...a sustainable, growing city... " ? there's the predicament in a nutshell. Endless growth?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you have 15,000 people and 10,000 apples then > you can piss about with 'solutions' as much as you > like, but 15,000 people are not going to all get > an apple unless you get more apples. Society is under no obligation to leave aside all other considerations in order to 'provide' all those 15,000 people with apples.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > none of those measures do anything to > reduce the primary factor - that more people want > to live in London than there are houses. Not giving people what they want is not quite a 'crisis', though. We need measures for people who live here now. There's nothing wrong with government intervening to reduce the desire to move to London - one way, as you say, is a programme of moving jobs out of London. There's no need for a Khmer Rouge-style forced march, but large organisations such as the civil service and the BBC have taken steps in that direction already. And incentives can be given to business to shift productive activity elsewhere. I'm not sure of the Tories intentions with regard to HS2, the 'Northern powerhouse' etc, but in principle I approve. I work for a small consumer magazine publishing company and there's absolutely no reason why we should have to be in central London, apart from inertia and the wishes of senior management. Ultimately, and ironically, it might be the market that decides, in that skilled young workers won't be able to move to London because of affordability, so employers will be 'forced' to move elsewhere.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But the point is that they are still not building > enough. Foreign buyers/immigrants, cheap credit, > buy to let, internal movement to London, whatever > are not the direct cause. Normal 'laws' of supply > and demand are *exactly* what is going on here. > Prices will only stay high when demand >>> supply. > Build *enough* more and prices will come down, > but that's not happening so the market will raise > prices to try and achieve some semblance of > equilibrium. > > There is no economic gravity defying going on > here. But we have planning policy, government housing policy, credit regulations and so on because we don't just leave it to the market. I don't doubt that we need to build more in London, but there's much less profit in social and 'affordable' housing than there is in letting developers do what they want, which is where we seem to be right now (whether it be the Heygate or upstairs from M&S). Bring in rent controls, protected tenancies, limits on buy to let, restrictions on foreign buyers, penalties for empty properties and more, and you'll certainly help tackle the crisis. I;m not suggesting do all of those things, but without any of them, I doubt the market will solve the housing crisis.

The problem is with much current development in London is that it's not 'affordable' to those who most need it. Developers are not in the business of 'solving the housing crisis'. They realise that the normal 'laws' of supply and demand often don't hold in housing because of the impact of foreign buyers, access to credit etc. So they keep building and prices don't come down. And developers like nothing more than people shouting, "Nimby!" every time someone objects to a development.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BUT he talked about the Dulwich Hospital site and > how the school could be more vertical and tall so > that plenty of space would be left for lots of new > housing. So I can see that the Dulwich Hospital > site will have taller buildings proposed than I'd > want and I suspect many local residents. So housing on the Dulwich Hospital site is still on the agenda? I thought it had come down to the school plus the community health centre.

Please bore us rigid :-) When it comes to dealing with planners and developers, it takes temacity, persistence and eternal vigilance. 'Nil carborundum illegitimi' and all that.

I've never been asked. Were you in a car or van?

Andrew1011 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pipsky2008 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think that building would make a great > Library > > instead of the new proposed newlibrary being > > tucked away behind Morrisons. > > Except the new library on Railway Rise is costing > Southwark virtually nothing, other than a > peppercorn rent, furnishings and the usual revenue > costs, due to a section 106 agreement. Whereas > the Cherry Tree building would have to be > purchased or leased in the first place, and at a > no doubt prohibitive cost. Moving the current > Grove Vale library to the new site will lead to a > significant annual saving, of the kind which has > enabled Southwark to keep its libraries open - and > indeed build/open new ones - when other boroughs > have been closing theirs. Well, given the lack of movement on that site and the probability that Morrisons won't open a store there, I'm not convinced that the new library will definitely go ahead. Cllr. Barber has been rather silent about it of late.

Agreed. They're never going to get the footfall for a Walkabout. Come on, Wetherspoons, you know you want it...

No-one's laughing or ridiculing, as far as I can see. But someone threatening violence needs to be dealt with on that basis first and foremost.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm wearing my Diana Dors masque. > > Louisa. Your Diana Dors basque would be even better.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re: The White Horse. Hogie has decided to leave > and sell up after 33 years. He ran a fine old > school boozer. His son is going to run another pub > in the area and he'll be part of that. I like the > pub, especially for Hank Dog's Easycome music > nights on Wednesday. It's that club that I'm more > concerned about as it will possibly have to move. > Recently, I've enjoyed sets in there from people > like Dave Mankind, The Petrels, Misty Miller and > her brother Rufus, a couple of members of Fat > White Family (Saul and Lias) and another local > legend Flameproof Moth. So it's not all old farts > in there. I'm hoping that the new owners can > create a decent mix of old and new and keep > everyone happy. Maybe the Easycome could move back to the Ivy House?

Hello James, Please can you update us on the East Dulwich Station / garden centre site? Specifically: 1. Are Morrisons still planning on opening a store there? 2. Is the new library still happening? 3. The site is an eyesore ? can the developers be asked to do something about it, particularly with the hoardings narrowing the pavement right outside the station?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What on earth does genital mutilation and > religious endoctrination have to do with folklore > surrounding ghosts and hauntings in the local > area? What a pathetic way of taking a thread off > topic. If you wish to discuss 'witchcraft' or > religion or any form of mutilation, how about > making a specific thread about those topics rather > than doing it on this thread and scaring people > off from commenting about the actual topic. > > Louisa. Witchcraft and exorcism are paranormal activities. You can't just pick and choose the nice bits to suit you.

setter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James - Apologies if someone's asked this > already but what's happening about enforcing the > 20mph speed limit? Just witnessed a skip hire > truck doing about 40mph on Barry Road. Short answer: nothing. No resources are being put into enforcement, so the Council are simply appealing to people's better nature. Good luck with that.

Well, we're still no further down the road: 1. Are Morrisons still planning on opening a store there? 2. Is the new library still happening? 3. The site is an eyesore ? can the developers be asked to do something about it, particularly with the hoardings narrowing the pavement right outside the station?

The belief in witchcraft and its ability to control others does cause quite a lot of harm in this city. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/01/accusations-witchcraft-pattern-child-abuse

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > indeed but they still showed tax discs that were > lapsed. Not unreasonable to suggest they may not > have renewed this tax. I still have my old tax discs showing ? do I have to worry about being towed away, even though no-one needs to display a tax disc any more?

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Until recently the 40 bus used to take 35 to 40 > mins to the City leaving LL before about 7.15am. > Last month has been an hour most mornings and so > I've been getting the train or.....walking! > There's a great walking route up quiet leafy roads > past Rye Lane > Dunton Road> Tower Bridge that > takes 1 he 25 mins if you're brisk. It's great > when the weather is this nice, less dangerous than > cycling and rather energising too. I walk to work (London Bridge) two or three times a week depending on the weather. Nice quiet route through Camberwell and Walworth which takes about an hour and ten minutes.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Before grams what weights were used for cocaine ? > > 0.0352 ounces ??!! In the 70s? The 'bowlful' was the unit, I believe.

EDLove Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'The ad puts Marks & Spencer at the top of the > league, paying 78p for four pints to farmers for > milk that costs 68p to produce. Sainsbury?s pays > 72p for four pints while, at the bottom of the > league, Lidl, Aldi and Iceland pay 56p to 59p. > It?s not enough.' I'd take an ad from one of the big retailers with a big pinch of salt. It's very likely to be a snapshot rather than anything that reflects long-term prices and like-for-like comparisons (as the ad itself admits when it says sourcing from co-ops might pay higher prices). The supermarkets play the same game with their 'cheaper than...' ads.

EDLove Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Iceland does some OK stuff. Their milk is > cheap. > > Cheap milk shouldn't be viewed as a positive > thing; it should be concerning. It certainly is to > dairy farmers losing their livelihood. But, as > long as the bargain-hunters of East Dulwich can > have a nice chat with the friendly workers of > Iceland whilst fuelling a demand for low-priced > produce, who cares about those farming communities > or ethics...? > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/ > 25/observer-view-on-supermarket-prices-dairy-farme > rs Iceland are unlikely to be getting their milk cheaper than other ? bigger ? retailers. They're just happier with a smaller margin at retail. And milk production has had less and less to do with 'farming communities' for some while now. By all means criticise the industry, but don't single out Iceland.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have to wonder if today's resignation was > sparked by something else the Feds have just found > under a rock. If so he's jumping before the shit > hits the fan. Entirely in keeping with the > abhorrent vain $d ??$ that he is. I suspect the Feds already had what they needed on Blatter - and the last week or so has been about privately doing a deal in exchange for coming clean and cooperating.