Olympic torch shouldn't light the way for London's exiles

Trusted article source icon
Monday, April 23, 2012
Profile image for The Sentinel

The Sentinel

WITH less than 100 days to the Olympics, excitement is mounting. Plans for the torch procession into Stoke-on-Trent on May 30 are well advanced, while Wedgwood is working hard on delivering its 2012 merchandise.

As someone lucky enough to have won two tickets in the ballot, I am looking forward to taking my son to the weight-lifting events.

But there is a less welcome side to the London Olympics: plans to disperse some of the toughest tenants from east London's poorest boroughs into cities such as our own. And it needs to be stopped.

Last week, a Hanley-based housing association received a disturbing letter from Newham Council, the local authority hosting July's extravaganza, asking for help.

Thinking of changing your job or looking to change career.
Contact BlueSky CVs and get a CV to get your noticed.

Terms: 1 CV per customer full payment prior to commencement of CV

Contact: 01538 710408

Valid until: Monday, May 27 2013

The correspondence explained that due to an overheating of the local private rented sector in their borough – caused by a combination of this summer's Olympics and a buoyant market for London's young professionals – it could no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation.

Prices have been pushed too high. As a result, the gap between rents and the Local Housing Allowance – the fixed rate of housing benefit paid to tenants in the private rented sector – was too large.

It didn't mention anything about its social housing supply but, with a chronic shortage of social housing affecting communities across Britain, it didn't need to.

However, it was the proposed 'solution' that gave the Hanley charity cause for alarm. Accompanied by a generous financial incentive, it offered the 'opportunity' to take 500 families from Newham, presumably those most in need, to house them in Stoke-on-Trent.

Newham's proposal is, at the moment, entirely voluntary. But for those charities which have been involved in local housing for many years, it evokes the spectre of past compulsory dispersal programmes, where thousands of needy people from other parts of the country were dumped into privately-owned properties in North Staffordshire. In the last decade, this has included refugees and asylum seekers with complex and demanding needs, which local public services are often poorly set up to cater for. Meanwhile, communities began to feel ignored as their streets and schools changed before their eyes.

In Stoke-on-Trent, this has placed a big strain on education, health and criminal justice systems that were unprepared for the extra demand. Meanwhile, unscrupulous absentee landlords, with little interest in property maintenance, tenant welfare or the local area, moved in to make large returns on cheap properties knowing that they were being let to the Home Office or to other councils prepared to pay over the odds because of their problems.

The inevitable result of such unplanned pressure was the disintegration of vulnerable neighbourhoods and, in certain cases, the rise of the British National Party and an unpleasant extremism that preyed on the collapse of community cohesion.

To repeat such mistakes in times of greater economic uncertainty would be a devastating step backwards for Stoke-on-Trent.

Sadly, this is not just an Olympic problem. In part it is to do with the Government's rudimentary approach to housing and its reluctance to commit to building affordable homes in areas that really need them.

Combined with cuts to housing benefit, perhaps we are witnessing the social cleansing of the poorest parts of London, predicted by Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson.

Of course housing benefit needs reform, but the price of change should not mean communities of vulnerable people are uprooted and dumped in parts of the country they have no connection with.

The bigger story is one of economic inequality between London and the rest of the country.

We desperately need to rebalance our economy with a strategy that prioritises regional investment and growth to prevent the kind of housing mess currently gathering pace in the capital.

And the rest of the country certainly doesn't need the difficult-to-house cases London boroughs have had enough of.

Stoke-on-Trent has a proud history of welcoming outsiders and finding a place for everyone in the city.

But as our city seeks to re-build communities ruptured by the decline of traditional industries and create stable neighbourhoods, an unplanned influx of Olympic exiles will do us little good.

The 2012 games are bringing huge riches into London. The least those boroughs could do is look after their poor and needy. We look forward to welcoming the flame from Stratford – but not east London's exiles.

0
Tweet this article
Report

Comments

  • Profile image for Hellowacko

    by Hellowacko

    Wednesday, April 25 2012, 10:23AM

    “Sounds pretty obvious to me. London private houses charge the state far more rent than elsewhere. So the Housing associations are looking elsewhere to house the families, thus saving the taxpayers money.

    If you look at it locally though it's not good is it. London councils save money and poorer areas where the families will go to will be burdened.

    The solution would be that the saving made by individual London councils in housing their families in other areas should be re-distributed proportionately to those areas. So if it saves Newham Council £10,000 a year to house one of the families on their list in Stoke, then Stoke Council should receive a fair portion of that saving. Obviously the reason they are doing this in the first place is to save money which is no longer there for them to spend so the £10,000 doesn't actually exist, but a payment of some sort for accepting homeless families should be made to the receiving councils or it is just a case of cleaning out London by sweeping the dirt under the carpet of the North.”

  • Profile image for SimonDoh

    by SimonDoh

    Tuesday, April 24 2012, 11:53PM

    “I arrived at this page from a tweet by Tristram Hunt MP for Stoke on Trent Central - where he claims to be the authour of the above article.”

  • Profile image for MrEneoda

    by MrEneoda

    Tuesday, April 24 2012, 12:15PM

    “It's perhaps more revealing that the London Boroughs have contacted Housing Associations rather than the local authorities - the City Council will have very little role in this - a bit like the Home Office dispersal programme for Asylum Seekers .... although in this case it is labour-run councils trying to do what the UK Border Agency did with very little consultation.
    Perhaps Newham know how long it will take to get a decision from the Council - so are trying their hand at getting these people housed by the back door (sorry - pun intended)”

  • Profile image for mole10

    by mole10

    Tuesday, April 24 2012, 11:53AM

    “The people of Stoke are 'lovely'.
    Stoke people are very 'friendly'.
    Stoke-on-Trent is a 'great' place to live.
    Potteries people are 'very welcoming'.

    Who writes this nonsense?”

  • Profile image for ElRealistico

    by ElRealistico

    Tuesday, April 24 2012, 10:47AM

    “Unbelievable egregious stupidity of Stoke on Trent council if it allows this to go ahead.
    Just what the city needs, yet more unemployed on benefits taking houses away from those that have lived in the area for years and still cannot get a house.”

  • Profile image for MrEneoda

    by MrEneoda

    Tuesday, April 24 2012, 8:51AM

    “What the unsigned article doesn't mention is that this happening in a number of northern towns and cities - Hackney have contacted Hull - and the usual suspects of Tower Hamlets, Islington, Haringey have all contacted other areas in the 'deprived north'.
    The 'incentive' is also only for 12 months and only covers the cost of housing .... not any of the 'other' cost associated with housing large numbers (c.1,500-2,000 persons) - including education, social care, or health .....
    I'm surprised that this article - now headline news on the BBC website - has not attracted more comments .... should be an interesting debate.”

  • Profile image for 24Alan

    by 24Alan

    Monday, April 23 2012, 12:34PM

    “Readers of this letter may have noticed it is unsigned. Neither have we a photo of him, does he ware jack boots and walk a "goose step" and have a tach? He needn't worry however, if the Labour run City Council have received this letter then they will already have started to encircle Our City with razor-wire. "were full up"; "theres no room for anymore" you can here them cry.”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Be the first to comment

        max 4000 characters
         
         
         
         
         

        Related articles

         

        Tell us about your area

        Got some interesting news? Write about it and let your whole community know.

          Write an article