squatters on goose green (Lounged)

[expat]

>Posted by: goosegreenteam April 18, 12:10AM

>The building was bought in early January 2010.

So less than 5 months.

[*Bob*]

Would anybody like a cup of tea?

I can almost smell The Lounge from here.

[Meld]

expat Wrote:

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

> >Posted by: goosegreenteam April 18, 12:10AM

>

> >The building was bought in early January 2010.

> So less than 5 months.

Apologies to Bob, I missed this post.

[Siduhe]

Meld Wrote:

> Do we know for sure that the house was in fact

> sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one

> person speculating who claims to have inside

> knowledge about it? Much like on a recent

> dangerous dogs thread on here where a full

> description of the dangerous dog's owner was

> posted by someone who was sure that they knew who

> it was - before it transpired that they had the

> wrong guy!

There is a freehold house on East Dulwich Road which sold in Jan 2010 for ?715,000 where the new owner has applied for planning permission to convert the property into multiple flats. All of that information is available online from independent sources (e.g. Southwark planning pages, Zoopla, Land Registry). Planning permission for the conversion was only granted on 1 April based on the docs on Southwark's website, so the new owner couldn't have taken much action with the property before that.

Is it definitely the same property the squatters are in? I don't know that for a fact, but certain things they have said match up with the description of the property above, in particular the ref to steel shutters and that it was sold in Jan 2010.

[Lost Yorkshire Man]

Thanks Siduhe

I think you have given a very concise synopsis of the situation the owner of the property finds themselves in. I hope that the GGT have the decency to vacate the property immediately after the owner asks them to do so.

[cate]

pk Wrote:

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

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If the house is still untouched in a year, I'll

> go

> > round and deliver a delicious casserole to any

> > residing squatters.

> >

> > Up until then, I feel the benefit of the doubt

> > should reside with the person who only recently

> > paid over ?700k for it.

>

> i kinda agree with bits of it, but i don't think

> that the (presumably) rich, (possibly) ruthless

> property developer really cares about the social

> side of things - creating homes to take people

> off the streets, they're in it to line their own

> pockets and the flats won't be cheap i'm sure (or

> that (s)he needs the help of those on this board

> to fight their battles, when they want the

> squatters out i'm sure they'll get them out)

>

> Property developers extending and turning

> beautiful old housing into flats for the own

> personal gain are now seen as the good guys and

> the victims, who woulda thunk it?

>

> (i have assumed that the property in question is

> indeed the one that was recently bought for ?715k

> and for which planning permission to turn into

> flats has been sought and granted, if not, i

> accept that the above might not be relevant)

PK, what do you think should be done with that house if not converted into flats? It is enormous. Do you really think it is suitable for a single family occupancy? Back in the day a house like that would have had servants.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Nowt gets people riled quite like HARDWORKING HOMEOWNERS being VICTIMISED like this.

I'm almost tempted to move out of my house that I WORKED FOR and let these VILE PEOPLE squat in it, just so I can get more material for my next book from this here forum.

[pk]

cate Wrote:

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

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>PK, what do you think should be done with that

> house if not converted into flats? It is

> enormous. Do you really think it is suitable for

> a single family occupancy? Back in the day a

> house like that would have had servants.

it's nothing to do with me what's done with it

[plimsoul]

looks like we all got it wrong:

http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulresources/stats/2009breakdown.htm

according to the empty home agency stats it's actually: 75,706 total for london in 2009

28,804 for private homes

[Meld]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Fascinating to read spectrum of views.

> Huge shame that Southwark Council have 15,000

> people on its social housing waiting lists while

> Southwark had, the last time I formally asked

> about a year ago, 5,500 empty privately owned

> properties.

> I personally don't feel comfortable with squatting

> but clearly the levers created by central

> government to discourage properties being left

> empty are not working.

>

> Southwark Council can and does try persuading

> private owners to return properties into use but

> the Compulsory Purchase Order process is so

> painful that it can only rarely be used. Equally

> Southwark Council can only borrow money at rates

> decreed by central government which are a factor

> more expensive than the open money market. So

> can't borrow the sums required to kick start those

> 5,500 homes coming back into use.

Thanks, plimsoll. Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by James Barber above. I wonder where his data comes from?

[thebestnameshavegone]

I love a bit of data.

You can back any half-baked opinion you have up just nicely if you choose your source carefully.

[Meld]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> I love a bit of data.

>

> You can back any half-baked opinion you have up

> just nicely if you choose your source carefully.

Definition of data:

da?ta

   /ˈdeɪtə, ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show Spelled[dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh] Show IPA

?noun

1.

a pl. of datum.

2.

individual facts, statistics, or items of information

Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in the way of a good solid opinion.

[TheAllSeeingEye]

Meld Wrote:

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

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Did what?

> >

> > I don't understand. Unless you're somehow

> saying

> > the house wasn't sold recently?

> >

> > Please explain?!

>

> I meant quoting speculation as fact.

>

> Do we know for sure that the house was in fact

> sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one

> person speculating who claims to have inside

> knowledge about it? Much like on a recent

> dangerous dogs thread on here where a full

> description of the dangerous dog's owner was

> posted by someone who was sure that they knew who

> it was - before it transpired that they had the

> wrong guy!

As a local estate agent, and someone that viewed it, its not speculation. Its also recorded on Allsops Auction website as sold at that figure.

[jenren]

.

[Meld]

jenren Wrote:

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

> You can make data lie to you.........

Yes, of course, 'there are lies, lies and then there are statistics'. But most remotely credible opinions or reports about situations occurring across a whole country will be backed up by...data.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Meld Wrote:

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

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I love a bit of data.

> >

> > You can back any half-baked opinion you have up

> > just nicely if you choose your source

> carefully.

>

> Definition of data:

>

> da?ta

>    /ˈdeɪtə,

> ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show

> Spelled Show IPA

> ?noun

> 1.

> a pl. of datum.

> 2.

> individual facts, statistics, or items of

> information

>

> Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in the

> way of a good solid opinion.

What a stupid post.

What do climate change deniers do, if not selectively choose / ignore data?

[Penguin68]

Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by James Barber above I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Southwark council figures don't come from the Council tax listing showing properties on reduced council tax because empty - obviously building may also be empty but not claiming the reduced tax - i.e. sold but not yet moved into; waiting for refurbishment, registered as second homes (different discount scheme) etc. etc. There are two types of 'empty' - one is that the house if furnished but no one is living there, the second is that it is entiterely empty of everything. My guess is that it is this group that Southwark is reporting, with the 'empty but furnished' group excluded (or perhaps vice versa) - quite easy to get different figures by using different definitions of 'empty'.

[Meld]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Meld Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I love a bit of data.

> > >

> > > You can back any half-baked opinion you have

> up

> > > just nicely if you choose your source

> > carefully.

> >

> > Definition of data:

> >

> > da?ta

> >    /ˈdeɪtə,

> > ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show

> > Spelled Show IPA

> > ?noun

> > 1.

> > a pl. of datum.

> > 2.

> > individual facts, statistics, or items of

> > information

> >

> > Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in

> the

> > way of a good solid opinion.

>

> What a stupid post.

>

> What do climate change deniers do, if not

> selectively choose / ignore data?

I'm not sure that's just confined to climate change deniers, given the recent climate-gate scandal, but this is off topic so why bring climate change it?

As for calling my post stupid - perhaps your original post was the stupid one? What else do you base an opinion about a national problem on, if it's not based on facts/data/statistics? What you heard from the bloke down the pub?

[Meld]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by

> James Barber above I'm just guessing, but I

> wouldn't be surprised if the Southwark council

> figures don't come from the Council tax listing

> showing properties on reduced council tax because

> empty - obviously building may also be empty but

> not claiming the reduced tax - i.e. sold but not

> yet moved into; waiting for refurbishment,

> registered as second homes (different discount

> scheme) etc. etc. There are two types of 'empty' -

> one is that the house if furnished but no one is

> living there, the second is that it is entiterely

> empty of everything. My guess is that it is this

> group that Southwark is reporting, with the 'empty

> but furnished' group excluded (or perhaps vice

> versa) - quite easy to get different figures by

> using different definitions of 'empty'.

Thanks Penguin, that's interesting.

[*Bob*]

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE A CUP OF TEA?

[????]

I'd rather one of your casseroles *Bob*

[katie1997]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE A CUP OF TEA?

Depends if it comes with or without a sweeping generalisation? ;)

[Huguenot]

I love Milo's blart about "what people do when they're hiding their real motivations" What exactly do you think their disguised agenda really is?? How silly.

My belief in property rights can be found in this useful summary:

"The fundamental purpose of property rights, and their fundamental accomplishment, is that they eliminate destructive competition for control of economic resources. Well-defined and well-protected property rights replace competition by violence with competition by peaceful means."

I can confirm to you that I have absolutely no other agenda (for those that requested, have I explained myslef now? Even if I haven't I never actually said I would, unlike the manipulative and menacing GGT).

What squatters do, whether they realise it or not (and judging by GGT's grammatical incompetence probably not) is play their little bit of turning society into a destructive, violent place devoid of social responsibility - where might is right.

That's why they're a gang (a team), and their posts are laced with implied violence (or their euphemism of 'uncooperative force'). No-one else posts on here as a 'team', the GGT do because they're trying to intimidate. They're already metaphorically punching the rest of society in the face, so why stop there?

I not only think that's retarded, but by extension then if they are rejecting society, they are not entitled to be a part of it, or entitled to use its laws to defend their 'rights'.

If you'd like a concise clarification of what a property 'right' is, it's not getting up in the morning with a hangover and stealing someone's house:

"A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism.

Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. [The otheris ] the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). "

What these prattish squatters are doing is suffering 'ostracism', and for good reason. If you want to destroy society, then don't expect it to welcome you with open arms.

[ianr]

Huguenot's post has me thinking back to iaineasy's post on page 4 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,447811,450869#msg-450869, in which he says:

"In amsterdam ther is a system where squatting is encouraged in empty buildings but under given conditions where the squatter agrees to caretake the building and give it back in good condition, when the owner needs it back, if they stick to the agreement they are offered another place to stay ensuring low homelessness for the squatter and building kept safe for owner."

Would something like this be an acceptable and practicable way of meeting and reconciling different groups' perceived needs and rights?

[Huggers]

I think back to the early eightees- Bonnington Square, Hubert Grove, Mildmay Grove, Engelfield Road N1,Victoria Parks Cadogan Terrace (a lesbian separatist squat that one)- all empty council properties that would have been demolished if it hadnt been for the squatters sitting it out until councils had a change in aesthetic values.For councils it was cheaper to rebuild than conserve.

I had friends living and squatting in incredibly derelict slug-ridden properties. The houses survived because of them and those roads are now preserved and genteel mostly private victorian terraces instead of rat runs and high rises that the council wanted to replace them with.

Alas they could not save the beautiful old and huge houses on the site of the now yuk Angel Estate in Brixton which could have provided much social housing in themselves, nor Coronations Buildings the site of M15. Our loss.

Different from the GGTs maybe, as this house has a future and an interested owner, and it seems rather opportunistically motivated - rather than direct conciousness raising action in the belief property is theft, development rides on the back of blah blah blah .

Nevertheless please don't forget squatting has a radical and useful place in British history that has often been regenerating and creative..