Local council requires Grenfell survivors to bid against each other for new homes


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/08/23/hunger-games.html


#2

Sounds like the fodder for a series of Young Adult novels. We could call it Shelter Games.

Glad to see at least one MP (Lammy) has a clear view of the situation.


#3

image


#4

Hey, guess who has a few spare rooms right about now?


#5

God. Every time i read about anything related to Grenfell it’s guaranteed to make my blood boil.


#6

Hunger Games? What you’re complaining about is a system where survivors register their interest in specific properties, and then people with kids or disabilities get a higher priority than those who don’t. What David Lammy is calling for is for the council to decide who get which property. I can see pros and cons for each approach, although frankly I would suggest one that takes into account the views of the survivors is going to be better. Of course there needs to be proper support for people to use the system, whatever it is, but to argue either is morally wrong is just scoring political points off the back of a tragedy. Every single survivor will be rehomed, why don’t you mention that?


#7

Rehomed where? Rehomed when? Those are the two major questions. As a follow-up, rehomed in what kind of housing? I’ve had first-hand experience of exactly this kind of system, and it’s awful. Our local authority discontinued it precisely because it’s awful. Anyway, what’s wrong with hating Tories?


#8

Sure, these are all legitimate questions - the speed of rehoming, or where (I believe all within the borough btw), has nothing to do with the system used. If any other system was used, it is going to effectively work in the same way. Any system will inevitably a) ask people where they want to live from a limited supply of choices and b) give some people more priority that others, based on their needs. I genuinely can’t see how any other system might work, other than by making the process less transparent, or ignoring the wishes of the survivors… [Sorry, edited the bit about hating Tories out of original, as too shouty, but didn’t want your comment to look weird]


#9

Possibly because rehousing ‘every single survivor’ is about the basic minimum both in terms of simple decency and as regards the council’s legal obligation (certainly as far as council tenants are concerned)?

Plus, what @GilbertWham said.

I do agree that if the Council had just allocated flats to people, there would have been at least as much uproar as there is this way round.

Asking the survivors which way of allocating the available properties they’d prefer might have been an idea, but that would just be crazy and radical wouldn’t it.


#10

While sitting on cash reserves of £274 million.


#11

Well, turns out they need those reserves now.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish? Never heard of it. /s


#12

Can’t they just redistribute a few of the 350 millions per week they’re not going to give to the EU to build new homes?

or

Just distribute boot straps and the free market will sort it out.


#13

At the same time, should be done by the local government, not dropping the responsibility to the victims.


#14

No, that’s already earmarked for the NHS. Oh, wait a minute…

Free bootstraps? What kind of commie 5th element are you?!?

Of course, if you’re talking about some sort of initial loan arrangement at market interest rates offset with some sort of complicated hedging arrangement then that’s fine.

Possibly we could find a corporate bootstrap sponsor to cover the costs. That’d work too. You can’t just give them away though. /s


#15

Yeah, triage is what’s going to happen either way, but if it’s the same system we had, you’ll get a small number of properties released in a specific window, which you have to catch to bid, then they’ll be triaged against the points your situation scores you. If you miss the bidding window, due to being traumatised, stuck in a B&B with no internet cos your computer burned with everything else, and so on, you’re fucked. It’s the worst of every system, all stuck together in a big ball of horrible.


#16

“Plenty more where that came from”, said the 1%.


#17

I expect this might have an effect on what they think about that.

image


#18

checks to see if someone’s made a Hunger Games joke yet – first comment

GG all - carry on, carry on…


#19

This seems like still has a slight risk of being mistake for colossal disinterest untempered by empathy without a few extra features(‘gameification’, the kids love that!)

Is there a mechanism for those who lose out on a given position to see the applicants who were ranked above them? Something with social media integration and encouragement to spread emotionally inflammatory and ill-sourced accusations that others are exaggerating their needs and special circumstances? A gofundme-style platform for encouraging people to try to package their suffering into the most mediagenic form possible, in the likely vain hope that it will improve their changes, as fodder for cruel memes and supercuts of people already deemed to be among the feeble and the worthless?

I’m not saying the current arrangement isn’t a good start; very comfortable-technocratic-who-assumes-that-of-course-a-shiny-technological-frontend-for-a-beaurocracy-that-they-don’t-think-they-would-have-trouble-navigating UI/UX design is a genuinely solid opening move in this situation; but it feels like there is room for so much more.


#20

Possibly a TV-show spin-off, Britain’s Got Homeless?

They’re really missing out on the monetisation opportunities.

The sad reality of course is that the people who decided to use this system probably couldn’t use it themselves.

Councils decide they need a way to allocate the little housing stock they have. Some corporation (cough probably Crapita) sells them a system to do it.