When the 2006 Housing Act came into force some people welcomed its empowerment of Councils to take control of any properties that had been left empty by private landlords for more than six months. The measure appears on the surface to have an air of sociaist land redistribution, making use of wasted or hoarded resources for the benefit of those more in need.
Under the law local authorities have the power to hand over such properties to council housing departments or registered social landlords to provide living units for those in need of low cost housing.
Brighton and Hove's housing shortage is well known, so the prospect of any increase in the supply of social housing is obviously to be welcomed.
However this week Emma Kumar, the council's Empty Properties Officer revealed in a meeting with Brighton residents that the implementation of the policy in Brighton has not been for the benefit of the homeless of Brighton, but rather for the benefit of the housing market, and the continuing gentrification of the city.
All that the policy has done she explained, is force owners into putting these empty properties into the housing market, rather than leaving them to the direct action housing of local squatters.
Ms Kumar said that although the council have approached numerous owners about their empty properties, none of these properties have ever been taken over for social housing in the city. The actual purpose of the legislation turns out (surprise surprise) to be to keep the housing market afloat with more houses for sale, and concurrently to reduce the available options for the homeless in Brighton.
The city already operates a policy of refusal to serve any homeless person without a 'local connection' of at least six months . Homeless people without this qualification are left to squat or sleep rough where ever they can find a warm space, and if discovered are given bus fares to repatriate to their previous living areas.
With the restrictions of squattable houses, the homeless of Brighton are being driven out of town, while those who make millions from the city's over inflated housing market are raking in even more money for nothing.
Under the law local authorities have the power to hand over such properties to council housing departments or registered social landlords to provide living units for those in need of low cost housing.
Brighton and Hove's housing shortage is well known, so the prospect of any increase in the supply of social housing is obviously to be welcomed.
However this week Emma Kumar, the council's Empty Properties Officer revealed in a meeting with Brighton residents that the implementation of the policy in Brighton has not been for the benefit of the homeless of Brighton, but rather for the benefit of the housing market, and the continuing gentrification of the city.
All that the policy has done she explained, is force owners into putting these empty properties into the housing market, rather than leaving them to the direct action housing of local squatters.
Ms Kumar said that although the council have approached numerous owners about their empty properties, none of these properties have ever been taken over for social housing in the city. The actual purpose of the legislation turns out (surprise surprise) to be to keep the housing market afloat with more houses for sale, and concurrently to reduce the available options for the homeless in Brighton.
The city already operates a policy of refusal to serve any homeless person without a 'local connection' of at least six months . Homeless people without this qualification are left to squat or sleep rough where ever they can find a warm space, and if discovered are given bus fares to repatriate to their previous living areas.
With the restrictions of squattable houses, the homeless of Brighton are being driven out of town, while those who make millions from the city's over inflated housing market are raking in even more money for nothing.
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
agree and disagree
18.11.2007 16:27
I wouldn't be surprised however, if the council uses the legislation as a weapon against long-term squats - it is bound to, given its commitment to turning the city into one big starbucks cafe.
So its not a big conspiracy, more a tool for something else being used as a weapon by some other BHCC employees against squatters. If someone can get FOI about the council doing this specifically then I think it would be a very interesting story indeed.
BHCC employee
unsquatable
19.11.2007 20:27
I think you'll find that even boarded up properties and ones above shops are squatable, just a little more tricky that those without these obstacles.
person-unknown
in that case
20.11.2007 11:32
I think you will agree that certain properties are not really habitable - or it is preferable to sofa surf.
Again, if someone can name actual people/teams at the council involved in the alleged use of the legislation specifically against squatters then FOI requests can be made by interested parties....or sympathetic people in the right departments might search hard-drives should they feel the inclination etc etc (not me as I do not deal with this area).
BHCC Employee