Ban smoking inside Council owned properties

[ratty]

I actually agree with the Council Property should not be for life bit. It is outrageous that people get assured tenancies in council housing, then the right to buy, meaning that the next generation of needy get excluded from affordable housing.

However, it would be a brave govt that puts anything in place to counter this.

[DaveR]

"Or they genuinely believe that the rules for what you can do in your own home should differ according to your financial status, one law for the rich and another for the poor, which quite frankly isn?t forgivable."

I think the original post compared the situation between private and public landlords i.e. it is (apparently) routine for private landlords to ban smoking, presumably to reduce the risk of fire, cut down on cleaning/redecorating costs etc. With council housing the taxpayer is indirectly the landlord, and councils could, perhaps should, take similar action to protect 'our' property and reduce costs.

Not really about rich and poor at all.

[Rico]

It isn't about rich and poor. There are many 'non-poor' who live in Council Estates. A 'friend' of mine, not really that close but close enough, got a two bedroom with his partner 8 years ago. His partner has since left him. He managed to use the online swap to move to a two-bedroom house with a garden, nice place just off Church Street in Stoke Newington. No questions asked. Still pays about ?360 a month.

Oh and he makes 65K plus bonus with a bank on Canary Wharf. Not really a 'key' worker.

The exception? Probably. But I'd argue it's more commonplace than not. I know two others who still sublet council properties to help them with the mortgages in their new properties. Quite common. Not one thing to spot check/prevent it.

My guess, and I'll admit its not scientific, is we pay our local Councils a majority of our taxes to be inefficient, professional landlords on our behalf. I'd say over 50% of the people, money and time spent down Town Hall is all about being landlords.

Do I understand the housing strategy? Perhaps not. But please tell me 50 years on how that strategy is working out?

[macroban]

I don't think my pensioner friends who are council tenants would like the idea that the shouldn't have their homes for the rest of their lives.

[Rico]

Pensioners and similar 'vunerable' are certainly what such housing is for. They should be there for as long as they need it, even for life. Same as benefits for the truly ill/disabled etc.

It does demonstrate the point - it's about attitude. I accept the longstanding attitude was Government as mother and responsible for housing everyone, forever and ever amen. My 88 year old neighbour, who bought her house from off the Council 50 years ago (no joke) still calls the Council when anything goes wrong. She can afford any repair but her generation believes 'if there is any problem in my life it's up to the Council to sort it out'. Fair enough.

So yes, pensioners will stay - but the next generations of pensioners is where we need to start changing attitudes about Government as caretaker of all with no responsibility expected, no checks, always Gov'ts fault and responsibility.

This thread proves how deep it is in our society. The moment anyone sniffs what they perceive as 'negative' and 'against the poor' they trounce and refuse to accept that individuals need to take at least as much responsibility as Government. I actually think the constant excuses for those in lower incomes is part of the problem and your ill conceived 'protection' of them does them a disservice. But that's another thread.

[Brendan]

You tell 'em Rico!

[*Bob*]

Will pensioners and the disabled be allowed to smoke in their council properties?

[HonaloochieB]

If Rigsby was around today and a tenant of yours, would he be allowed to keep Vienna?

[cdonline]

Rico Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pensioners and similar 'vunerable' are certainly

> what such housing is for. They should be there

> for as long as they need it, even for life. Same

> as benefits for the truly ill/disabled etc.

>

> It does demonstrate the point - it's about

> attitude. I accept the longstanding attitude was

> Government as mother and responsible for housing

> everyone, forever and ever amen. My 88 year old

> neighbour, who bought her house from off the

> Council 50 years ago (no joke) still calls the

> Council when anything goes wrong. She can afford

> any repair but her generation believes 'if there

> is any problem in my life it's up to the Council

> to sort it out'. Fair enough.

>

> So yes, pensioners will stay - but the next

> generations of pensioners is where we need to

> start changing attitudes about Government as

> caretaker of all with no responsibility expected,

> no checks, always Gov'ts fault and

> responsibility.

>

> This thread proves how deep it is in our society.

> The moment anyone sniffs what they perceive as

> 'negative' and 'against the poor' they trounce and

> refuse to accept that individuals need to take at

> least as much responsibility as Government. I

> actually think the constant excuses for those in

> lower incomes is part of the problem and your ill

> conceived 'protection' of them does them a

> disservice. But that's another thread.

So, the issue wasn't really about smokers? The feckless poor. They even pay less tax on their ciggies. Perhaps the Government should put an extra tax on SuperKings and Lambert and Butler. That'll get them off their arses.

I'd love to hear more about your views on our social problems. Warms the cockles.

[Keef]

See you made some good points ther Rico, I have come across people who take the absolute p!ss subletting and all the things you describe above. I also agree totally with Ratty above. However, what has this got to do with smoking or not?

[boosboss]

I've got the answer!

Limit the ownership of property to one per person/family. Compulsory purchase all the private rental properties at land value only from the greedy private landlords. Alter the status of the tenants from tenants to owners, converting rents into mortgage payments, thus driving down the cost of home ownership so that lower income families and individuals can own their own home. Pensioners would be able to pay a mortgage from their pensions as opposed to paying rent. If everyone owns their own home, they wouldn't be smoking a home that is socially owned. Any property that is left to someone via a will should be returned to the housing market and sold at the market rate, obviously being bought by someone that doesn't already own their own home. Allow smoking in council run social housing and don't clean them after the tenants have left, thus encouraging the tenants to move on as soon as possible by providing substandard conditions and as such freeing up the property for the next poor (circumstance not monetary) individual.

Sorted!

And if you think this idea is barmy, reread the original post :)

[HonaloochieB]

No Black Sobranies

No Irish Majors

No Dogends

[Brendan]

Boosboss that would make too much sense. Just because housing strategies which promote single home ownership throughout the population, discourage social housing and discourage anyone with a second flat from setting themselves up as a landlord work very well in other first world countries with far higher standards of living and levels of social equality than the UK doesn?t mean it would work here. This is Britain dammit! I mean for one thing it would rob all our MPs of their substantial second incomes.

[Moos]

The discussion has gone on pretty far from here, so apologies if I'm dragging it backwards, but I suspect that the OP is mixing up cause and effect.

I certainly would not rent a flat which smelled of smoke, nor would I want to rent one with a carpet with holes in. If a landlord rents out a clean-smelling flat with a whole carpet, he should expect to get the flat back in the same condition. That means that if the inhabitant wants to smoke or hold regular mass prayer meetings he will have to find a way to protect the property from damage from cigarettes or bony knees. There's no point the landlord banning smoking or praying but he has a right to expect the tenant to work out how to give back the property in good condition.

[Rico]

Agreed Moos. I started down that path - but when you are assaulted with charges that you hate the poor and want to punish them, the conversation veers.

Perhaps social housing as a topic generally is another thread. As you'll see, I have strong views on that too. But I'm glad we're all helping Chav live cheap and save up 150K to buy a plot in France. Maybe that's a start.

[Moos]

Rico, with respect, you rather invited the response you got when you suggested banning people from smoking in their own homes.

But I'm glad we agree that being sensible is a good thing ...

[Rico]

No I suggested banning smoking in Council owned homes - where we are the landlords. Landlords can choose to do so, why not the Council?

'Banning smoking in their own homes' is a bit of a stretch. My lodgers may indeed call my flat their home, but they aren't allowed to smoke in it. It's called choices and personal responsibility.

[Moos]

OK, that's where we're differing. My thought was that if someone wishes to smoke in their home (whether private or Council) they should be able to do so, but should have a mind to cleaning up when they move out - including if necessary, a top-to-toe clean or even a repaint for really heavy damage. People should have responsibility for their actions, but if smoking were not so demonised you wouldn't be able to get away with the ban. You can't ban people from dancing or cooking or eating jelly or drinking red wine - but you expect people to clean up after themselves. For me, it should be the same with smokers.

Oh - and your lodgers no doubt do call their flat their home. Because it is.

[Brendan]

Oh sorry, well that type of sentiment is of course far more ingratiating.

[Moos]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh sorry, well that type of sentiment is of course

> far more ingratiating.

Not getting what you mean, Brendan?

[Brendan]

Sorry Moos that was in reply to the post above your last one.

[Rico]

Agreed. It is their home. But there are rules and they chose to sign up to them. They may well smoke and I may well not notice, which really won't matter. But that's the rule.

And Council's should be able to make such rules too.

[Moos]

I think they can, Rico, they just don't. We aren't debating what the rules are (no point discussing whether facts are facts) but what they should be.

Are we getting anywhere with this one? I have a feeling not.

[boosboss]

Rico - What makes you anymore of a council property landlord than someone living in one and paying the same taxes you do and what gives you any more right to want a ban in those properties than they have to smoke in them? I don't understand why this is even an issue for you, haven't you something else more important to worry about?

[Rico]

You could say that about 95% of these threads - we all have too much time on our hands.

They've banned it in all Gov't buildings that you and I own, don't know why they can't extend further.