成人论坛

A great idea! Let us hope Cornwall Council will get to use more "carrot" than "stick".

All the council needs to do after "compulsory purchase" and doing these properties up fit to live in, is to come up with a way so people can live in these properties rent free.
If the work and ways to pay for accommodation was not there before, who says it will be there after?

The unwaged and low earner can get Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
Residents pay water and sewerage only.

Here we go again - the "Money grows on trees" party springs into action.

We, of the Money Grows On Trees Party, would ask "backofanenvelope" to consider this.
People who were homeless or living in temporary accommodation would have a permanent address, from which it is far easier to find employment.

Bed and breakfast accommodation ,for those with local links, is paid for by Cornwall Council.
This is very expensive.
Far more than the cost of providing Council Tax and Housing Benefits.
The new tenant in a permanent home still has to pay water and sewerage rates. At present Cornwall rates, about 拢10:00 per week.
Not asking for your vote, just look yourself if you doubt it.

I start from the position that we are broke. We can't afford what we have now, let alone spend more.

Empty houses purchased by compulsion will cost the valuation cost; they are not free. Refurbishing them will cost a lot, especially if the council have a hand in it. If all the new tenants have to pay is the water bill, then they won't look after the property.

It would be better to build hostels.

How do we get from this?:

"I start from the position that we are broke. We can't afford what we have now, let alone spend more."

To this?:


"It would be better to build hostels"

If we are "broke" where does the money come from to "build hostels"?

Also, where did you get this from?



"If all the new tenants have to pay is the water bill, then they won't look after the property."

"The Thatcher Workbook"?

And what is wrong with the "Thatcher Workbook"? Could you tell me where I could find a copy?

I didn't say the council should build hostels, I just remarked that it would be better than refurbishing at taxpayer expense some 2000 dwellings.

As to council house tenants looking after the properties, I base that on my experience on living on a council owned estate. How about you?

Yes, I have experience of council-housing, both on a personal and professional basis. It doesn't follow that folk on benefits will not look after their homes, that is a sweeping statement, to say the least!

We are talking about complete families living in temporary accommodation, who would love a tenancy.

Who would fund and build these "hostels" you propose?

Far better that the Council take the initiative and purchase these 4,000 empty properties and refurbish them for local general housing needs.

Slimslad wrote:
"Far better that the Council take the initiative and purchase these 4,000 empty properties and refurbish them for local general housing needs."

And keep these properties as council properties for each generation that comes along, they will be needed and more for sure. No work No pay who cares have a nice day.

On local TV last night, the council said 2000 properties. Now you two say 4000. Tomorrow 6000; Thursday the world!

"And keep these properties as council properties for each generation that comes along, they will be needed and more for sure. No work No pay who cares have a nice day."

If that is what you think, yc, there's nothing I can say that would dissaude you from that point of view.

However, Cornwall Council would be making 4,000 houses available that would otherwise be left empty.

A sizeable "bite" out of those on the Council's housing list.

"Cornwall Council said there are currently 18,931 families on the housing waiting list."

Cornwall has 224,000 households, with an average size of 2.29 persons per household

9160 families housed.

Almost half the families on the Housing Register.

Slimslad wrote:
"If that is what you think, yc, there's nothing I can say that would dissaude you from that point of view"

Not what I think Slimslad, but if everything is going to be given on a plate where is the incentive to go out and work? Tax payers can鈥檛 keep forking out.

I have no big problems with the proposition. Here's how these houses should be prioritised.

Q1. Are you;

a) A single mother under the age of 19 with kids by different fathers, who has never worked, and who has no intent of ever working, and wants to spend the rest of your life living on benefits?

b) A single or married/in a relationship person, who is either working or wants to work, who would be prepared to move on from the accommodation once your financial situation is better?

Then B should be prioritised. Unfortunately the doo-gooders at the council will want to prioritise A.

That's another problem isn't it? Whats the betting that your chances of getting a house will be enhanced if you know a councillor? Of course, we could just raffle them off.

Most Councils use a "banding" system for housing priority.

But, again, I cannot argue with "Daily Mail-type thinking", too ingrained.

On the positive side, the work to update and improve these 4,000 houses will help folk stay in a job, or give more employment, building suppliers will benefit and there will be less of a need to build on "green-field" sites.

Well, I hope you get over being ingrained by Daily Mail-type thinking. You could broaden your mind by reading the Guardian.

Good idea - a banding system. No chance of getting moved into a better band because you know someone who can fix it for you I suppose?

By the way, the government (the one in Whitehall) is thinking of allowing LAs to impose an empty house tax. Buying up this variable number of empty houses would reduce the council's revenue.

Have you ever wondered why these houses are empty? The item on local TV about a boarded-up bungalow in St Austell ended by revealing that there was a legal dispute over ownership. There might be other, even better, reasons for leaving them alone.

Dave the rave wrote:
"Then B should be prioritised. Unfortunately the doo-gooders at the council will want to prioritise A."

Whatever, accommodation is needed now and in the future by the looks of things.

"Hundreds more midwives are needed in the Westcountry to keep up with the baby boom"

I would doubt even Cornwall's councillors will have 4,000 mates to "fix" housing for.
"Legal disputes"?

I believe Cornwall Council have a very decent Legal Department, who might just have some experience in housing disputes.

Never read "The Guardian", by the way.

"Hundreds more midwives need in the Westcountry." Care to define Westcountry? I very much doubt if Cornwall is particularly short of them Anyway, it is likely to be Health funding not housing that is the problem.

For you Slimslad - I don't think the council legal dept should be involved in property ownership disputes. Unless you would like to up the county's expenditure on that dept? I don't read the Guardian either - or the Daily Mail.

My solution to lack of housing - if it is a problem - would be to build a couple of dozen prefabs in each parish. Location and allocation to be decided by the parish council.

"I don't think the council legal dept should be involved in property ownership disputes"?

They are already involved.




"My solution to lack of housing - if it is a problem - would be to build a couple of dozen prefabs in each parish. Location and allocation to be decided by the parish council."?

Which brings us neatly back to to your comment:


"I start from the position that we are broke. We can't afford what we have now, let alone spend more."

"I start from the position that we are broke. We can't afford what we have now, let alone spend more."

Fair enough; I stick with that.

"Nationalists", and many others, have been suggesting such a scheme for years.
For those who appear to fear the cost implication, may I ask how much it "costs" to have an empty house, just sitting there, doing nothing. No-one living in it, no-one contributing to the local economy, no-one contributing to the local community?
Compared with the "cost" of supporting a homeless family in B&B, a family who, even if they were on full Housing Benefit, would cost "us" a lot less in rental payments (proper rent is far cheaper than B&B) if they were living in that empty house, a family who, if they were living in the empty house, would be contributing to the local economy, contributing to the local community?
It is socially and morally wrong to own a house and leave it sitting there empty while there are others in that area who have no home. Those who own such properties have no concern for the local economy or the local community, the only concern they have is for themselves. If it was down to me, these empty houses would be "compulsory purchased", for the sum of 拢1.00, and the owners of empty houses would be made to pay for the shortfall to the local economy that having the house empty has caused.

And when every empty house is occupied what then? Are those who have been encouraged to stop at home and moan just going to go way and forget what the nationalist have told them? "This is your culture your land your life".

Or is this just another step in the sequence of events which is to be expected
form the nats?

""Nationalists", and many others"?

We know who the "nationalists" are, but who are the "many others"?

The rest of P_Trembath's post is just a repeat of previous postings.(Mostly mine).

"If it was down to me, these empty houses would be "compulsory purchased", for the sum of 拢1.00"

One of the things that differentiates us from the barbarians is the right to own property. Without that right we are at the mercy of our rulers. These houses are not yours or ours, they belong to someone.

fulYou should be care P_Trembath or they'll be coming for your house one day.

Slimslad wrote:
"The rest of P_Trembath's post is just a repeat of previous postings.(Mostly mine)."

But failing to understand how some will turn anything to suite their own ends, the nats teachings are an ideal excuse to blame everyone and everything, hence my earlier observations "No work No pay who cares have a nice day"

Try this one

Who said our Cornish culture will not feed us
and give us our daily bread?
You find time for work to pay taxes
and we will find time to stay in bed.

youngcornwall wrote:-
"And when every empty house is occupied what then? Are those who have been encouraged to stop at home and moan just going to go way and forget what the nationalist have told them? "This is your culture your land your life".

Or is this just another step in the sequence of events which is to be expected
form the nats?"

Oh dear YC, and where is there left to run too after everyone has copied your choice? there are those who believe that the "grass is always greener", and there are those who believe that they should work to make their grass the greenest ever. Running away to "greener grass", whilst a valid option, and one that is open to everyone, is OK if you are uncomfortable with doing the work necessary to feed and nurture your own grass. Far better to let someone somewhere else do the hard work, and then move in and enjoy it YC?

Oh yes, and I do not believe that Mark Kaczmarek is a "Nat", as such, proud Cornishman, of, I believe, part Polish decent, he has decided to stay and do the work necessary to help make Cornish grass greener than wherever it is your grass now resides.


Slimslad wrote:-
"""Nationalists", and many others"?

We know who the "nationalists" are, but who are the "many others"?

The rest of P_Trembath's post is just a repeat of previous postings.(Mostly mine)."

The others?
Well, Mark Kaczmarek for one.

As for the attempted inverse plagiarism, I thought better of you.



backofanenvelope wrote:-
"One of the things that differentiates us from the barbarians is the right to own property. Without that right we are at the mercy of our rulers. These houses are not yours or ours, they belong to someone."

There is nothing wrong with a right to own property. Everyone has the right to do so.
The thing with "rights" is that some people think that rights are dependent on their ability to pay for them. Some people think that their rights are more important than someone who does not have as much money as them.
The thing with "rights" is, that they should apply to all in equal measure. If "we" have the "right" to own property, then everyone has the "right" to own property. What you actually mean is that you believe that whilst everyone has the "right" to own property, there are those who have the right to prevent others from owning property, and that that "right" is granted by the size of ones bank balance.
And yet, this thr

Continued:-

And yet, this thread is not about having the "right" to own property, it is about having the right to a HOME, having the "right" to a roof over your head, a place to live. A "Right" that supersedes any "rights" to property ownership.

It is also somewhat amusing that I have now been attacked by a closet nationalist, an unchristian christian, and a fully paid up member of the capitalist system. At least I have been attacked by one honest person.

Thanks for explaining to me what I actually meant. Except that I didn't or don't.

A right to a home that supersedes someone else's right to own a property is just plain wrong. How long before someone comes along with a family of lodgers to live with you Mr Trembath? After all, they have this "right" of yours.

And as you say, everyone has, in this country, the right to own property. What they shouldn't have is the right to take someone else's' property - thats theft. But then, if you are not a capitalist, a christian or a nationalist - you are probably a Guardian reader and believe that all property is theft!

backofanenvelope wrote:-
"A right to a home that supersedes someone else's right to own a property is just plain wrong. How long before someone comes along with a family of lodgers to live with you Mr Trembath? After all, they have this "right" of yours."

No, a right to a home, supersedes anothers "right" to prevent them from having a home, by keeping a house empty. They can still own the house if they wish, but if they choose to keep it empty, then they should forfeit any "right" they may have to own it.

As for your "lodgers" analogy, my home is not empty, I live in it with my family. Please remember that we are discussing empty property here, not occupied property.

I do not read the Guardian, occasionally, for a laugh I read the Mail, but usually it's The Times. I do not think that property is theft, I do, however, believe that with property ownership comes responsibility. It is the neglect of that responsibility, for whatever reason, that I find objectionable.

In times of want, during famine or war, society generally looks on those who hoard as antisocial, criminal, in fact there are often laws passed against the practice. And yet, hoarding is just people exercising their "right" to spend their money on what they want. Is it right to hoard food, whilst those around you starve?
Is it right to own a property and keep it empty whilst there are people around you that are homeless?
I do not think so, but then, I am a Nationalist, who believes that capitalism needs to be tempered with humanity. Unfortunately capitalism is the best system we have found so far. "Unfortunately", because it breeds greed, and whilst there are occasions when such greed can lead to progress, it is also true to say that greed also leads to misery, and suffering. Misery and suffering occur naturally as it is, to increase them, or inflict them on others, through greed is unforgivable, to defend such increase, or infliction, is indescribable.
To sit back and let people go homeless while you own a house that is standing empty, a house that a family could have as a home, is pure greed.

"Nationalists", and many others, have been suggesting such a scheme for years.
P Trembath.

Yes, well that's going to help isn't it? Not!
Nobody pays any attention to the nationalists, apart from those of us who enjoy ribbing them to watch them get fired up in impotent rage.

Please do try to keep on topic Dave the rave.
And as for what you like doing with your ribs..........please, we would all prefer if you were to keep it in the privacy of your own home.

Tut tut, I don't know, give 'em a keyboard..............................

"New government strike on empty homes"



Not just a Cornish problem.

With new initiatives to solve it.

Slimslad wrote:
"New government strike on empty homes"

If and when these properties have been bought by the councils and made fit to live in by the councils, they will stay forever the council鈥檚 properties for generations to come. The not so funny thing is, history has a funny way of repeating itself.

鈥淣obody pays any attention to the nationalists鈥�

They have the ability to ensure the very thing they are protesting about proceeds without failure, I could be wrong but I have never seen them succeed at anything, except making the Cornish look backwards. This is not a local issue but a problem caused by Thatchers reign of terror, when she created the selfish society, by allowing council homes to be sold creating the mess we have today, the story is hot air.

Have you not noticed that Mrs Thatcher fell from power 21 years ago? That's 21 years, including 13 of Labour, to put right her no doubt numerous errors.

Have you not noticed, that there are some who blame anyone they can think of, Thatcher, Blair, Brown, um, oh yes, Major, even Nationalists.
Usually these are the very same people who are too comfortable in their own little worlds, that they will protest nothing, for fear of loosing what they already have.
Members of Thatchers "selfish society" probably.

"Have you not noticed, that there are some who blame anyone they can think of, Thatcher, Blair, Brown, um, oh yes, Major, even Nationalists."

"Blame Nationalists"?

What for?

They have done absolutely nothing.
They do absolutely nothing.
They affect nobody.
Change nothing.

Saltashgaz wrote:
鈥淣obody pays any attention to the nationalists鈥�
"They have the ability to ensure the very thing they are protesting about proceeds without failure, I could be wrong but I have never seen them succeed at anything"

Yes they succeed in their entertainment value, they just cannot help it, and it comes naturally to them. Their failed exploits will go down in history, here is a good one that never even got off the ground The Rally of Recognition, remember that? Wait for it there is one that is coming up next year Monday August 27th, I say no more.

If we have learnt from what the Thatcher government did, so it will not happen again that cannot be a bad thing.

Something on the Summer Bank Holiday, yc?

Could be a "stunt" aimed at tourists?

I am sure it will be as well attended as other "stunts".

We could get philosophical about these not so fancy frolics; but they do managed to turn the following quote into realism. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

"Nonsense and noise will oft prevail, when honour and affection fail."

(William Lloyd George)