lambeth evicts tenants from their refurbished 'short-life' properties

[fl0wer]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/woman-lambeth-council-home-faces-eviction

[Otta]

That is harsh, but unless I'm reading it wrong, these people basically had these houses for nothing, and did a load of work on them. I appreciate that this woman has made the house a better house, but she's also been allowed to live in it for nothing for 33 years. I see how it would be upsetting to be asked to move, but I can't really see that she has any grounds for complaint.

[Loz]

I don;t think she lived in it for nothing - she did pay rent to the housing association.

[Otta]

No it was a housing co-op, I was looking at joining one some years back. If she paid anything it was pennies. Shw certainly hasn't been paying regular council / HA rents.

[uncleglen]

Councils always do what is best for the benefit of the whole area, so I've been led to believe. So realising the value of these properties is the only democratic choice they have.

[imogen]

Shortlife housing co-ops did have very low rents back in the 80's.Since theb mid 90's rents have been similar to HA's. I lived in a co-op house in Kennington and spent the best part of a year transforming it from a derelict shell into a warm comfortable home. After 8 years the council took it back and housed a large family in it. We formed a group within our co-op and built 10 beautiful houses on Telegraph Hill where I still live. Our house is beautiful and we pay ?102.00 a week to live here.

[eberg]

Its a bit harsh to suggest that people got these properties for nothing. I was a member of a shortlife co-op and we were given houses by local authorities that were not viable as stock because of their deplorable condition. The co-ops negotiated with the Housing Corporation to secure small grants that were used to make the houses wind and waterproof and the installation of plumbing and electrics.Once the grants were used up, co-op members used their own funds to improve the properties. After 6 or 7 years the councils began asking for properties back, the case of the lady who managed to hang on to her property for 33 years is very unusual. The co-op that I was in finally split, half the members remained as a co-op but managed by a housing association and some of us formed a self build co-op and built our own homes. We have lived very happily in our homes for the last 17 years. We don't own them, none of us felt the need to be homeowners and because we built them our rents are low (people pay more for a room in a shared flat where we live) and our tenancies are protected. It is

[eberg]

Its a bit harsh to suggest that people got these properties for nothing. I was a member of a shortlife co-op and we were given houses by local authorities that were not viable as stock because of their deplorable condition. The co-ops negotiated with the Housing Corporation to secure small grants that were used to make the houses wind and waterproof and the installation of plumbing and electrics.Once the grants were used up, co-op members used their own funds to improve the properties. After 6 or 7 years the councils began asking for properties back, the case of the lady who managed to hang on to her property for 33 years is very unusual. The co-op that I was in finally split, half the members remained as a co-op but managed by a housing association and some of us formed a self build co-op and built our own homes. We have lived very happily in our homes for the last 17 years. We don't own them, none of us felt the need to be homeowners and because we built them our rents are low (people pay more for a room in a shared flat where we live) and our tenancies are protected. It is not absolutely necessary to own property to have secure and fruitful futures. Our children have the same opportunities as anyone elses and have a very healthy attitude towards the concepts of cooperability, compromise and collective responsibility. Some people gasp when we say that we don't own our home as if we have done something irresponsible in not becoming homeowners. My partner and I have fairly modest incomes but we have been able to choose a less money driven pathway in our lives.

[ianr]

> We don't own them, none of us felt the need to be homeowners and because we built them our rents are low

So what kind of body does own them? Do you have a share in that?

[Otta]

Doesn't the council still own them all along?

[eberg]

They are owned by a small HA that was set up to manage self build cooperatives. The HA carries out rent collection and organises major cyclical maintainence but the co-op retains allocation, development and some members carry out their own maintenance and repairs. As well as limited rents the original builders are entitled to 'sweat equity' an index linked payment that is paid if and when a member relinquishes the tenancy. To date only one family has moved on and they weren't original builders. The council has nothing to do with our homes.