Horrific Fire Engulfs London Apartment Tower

[Brian Peacock]

800 residents from 5 tower block in Camden, London, are being evacuated due to safety concerns relating to fire safety and building materials.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... -concerns/

[Alan B]

Typical 'knee-jerk' reaction by local politicians who want to be seen to be 'doing something'. Fuck the residents who have lived there without incident for the last 10 years.
What they should be doing is to ensure that spontaneous fires due to possible faulty internal equipment and installations - the external cladding wont catch alight all by itself - is eliminated.
Then proceed with replacing the cladding and adding necessary internal fire prevention systems.
This could be done without 'panic' evacuation of any of the residents.

As an aside, replacing the cladding could take months - well into Winter. I would presume that the suspect cladding will be replaced section by section and not totally removed 'in one go' as a panic measure. If the latter, then there will be an increase in heat loss from the flats and increased fuel bills which the local council would probably have to pay.

[Brian Peacock]

It's just a rehearsal for the mass removal of the poor from central London. You can't effectively fortify and police the capital if it's packed with angry poor people.

[Tyrannical]

It's just a rehearsal for the mass removal of the poor from central London. You can't effectively fortify and police the capital if it's packed with angry poor people.

Best thing that could ever happen to London, remove all the poor people to make room for the middle class that actually work there. Then I suppose you could house the poor people cheaper and better in less expensive areas.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, and just bus them in in the middle of the night to clean offices, empty bins, and jerk off lonely bankers so nobody had to see them eh?

[Collector1337]

So, these were socialized, subsidized by the government, public housing then, correct?

Do I really need to explain why this happened?

[Brian Peacock]

No, many of the rents were subsidised, the block was managed by a private firm, but yeah, we all know why it happened - In the pursuit of profit tenants living in a potential death trap was considered an affordable risk.

[Collector1337]

No, many of the rents were subsidised, the block was managed by a private firm, but yeah, we all know why it happened - In the pursuit of profit tenants living in a potential death trap was considered an affordable risk.

Well, that's what you get for living in a government subsidized building.

You didn't expect quality, did you?

[Brian Peacock]

Except, of course, the building isn't subsided, just the landlord's rental income.

[Rum]

..and except that there are millions of government built and subsided houses - 'council houses' that are of perfectly decent quality - built mostly by Labour governments in the 50s and 60s.

[Collector1337]

Except, of course, the building isn't subsided, just the landlord's rental income.

..and except that there are millions of government built and subsided houses - 'council houses' that are of perfectly decent quality - built mostly by Labour governments in the 50s and 60s.

The tenants get money from the government to pay their rent, correct? So, it's like Section 8 in the US, it sounds like.

Do landlords get market value or do they have to take less money from tenants who are subsidized by the government?

[Rum]

Except, of course, the building isn't subsided, just the landlord's rental income.

..and except that there are millions of government built and subsided houses - 'council houses' that are of perfectly decent quality - built mostly by Labour governments in the 50s and 60s.

The tenants get money from the government to pay their rent, correct? So, it's like Section 8 in the US, it sounds like.

Do landlords get market value or do they have to take less money from tenants who are subsidized by the government?

First thing to say is that under Margaret Thatcher millions of state owned houses (council houses) were sold under the 'right to buy' scheme to their tenants. People got a really good deal as these prices were really cut down - well under the market price in the main. This had a positive impact in some areas as home owners as a rule tend to take a bit more pride in their houses. The down side of course was in areas where the poorest lived and could not afford to buy they increasingly became ghettos with all the social problems that go with that.

Rent subsidies are paid through a welfare benefit called 'housing benefit'. It is means tested and if your income is below a certain level the government pays the difference. As I recall the benefit goes straight to the landlord, but I could be wrong on that issue.

[Brian Peacock]

And very few people get a full rent subsidy, there being both a cap on the amount paid and a cap on the number of rooms you can claim for.

[Collector1337]

So, the answer to my question is yes, then?

It sounds like the incentives are in the wrong place and this is why things like this happen.

The landlords really don't have much incentive to maintain properties as they should since there is so much government funding.

If property isn't maintained the way it should, people will move out and the landlord runs the risk of not getting that revenue. When the government is paying, tenants don't have that leverage of moving out like they would if they were paying their own way.

[Tyrannical]

My humble and small inexpensive home would be a mansion compared to these subsidized shanties in one of the world's most expensive markets.