Thanks to the HUGE amount of supporters outside to resist the eviction the cops and baliffs have gone! This is only a temporary reprieve though so support WILL be needed later in the week.
Photos to follow soon.
That's a novel analysis. I wonder how many people are homeless because of:
- The fact that housing is allocated by price
- That house prices have risen so much more than wages to the extent that owning a house becomes a lifelong commitment (if you're lucky) rather than a right
- That councils have sold off the majority of accessible public housing
- That property speculators make millions from keeping properties empty.
Versus
- Some squatters living in some of the vast number of empty properties
Enough people with sympathy (actually it was solidarity) turned up today and the police and bailiffs drove off.
It therefore makes it even more important that it is allocated fairly and that those with the greatest need have greater priority over those with lesser need. This is a very difficult thing to assess, and although Choice based lettings is far from being perfect, it is certainly better than a free for all squatting system.
The fact that some property developers make money from leaving properties empty for many years is not relevant here. This is a property that appears to be owned by a not for profit organisation who are trying to help those in greatest need. Why should they have to spend time, money and resources evicting people who have no right to be there in the first place.
I have in the past conducted surveys of housing in St Pauls and I have been horrified by the damage that some squatters have done to the property that they have occupied. I know nothing about the condition of this squat and this comment is not aimed at those who are occupying it.
Don't be fooled that just because there is a "social housing provider" that is the reason they want the property. I know of at least one housing association property that was squatted last year by people who needed housing and were in many ways going to protect it from becoming a "crack house" or some other social problem in a neighbourhood with a lot of issues.
After lots of actual negotiation with the landlords, explaining that they were happy to move once the property was due to be re-let as a family house the squatters were told that it was the housing associations intentions to sell it (for a profit i'd imagine). The squatters left at the beginning of 2008 and sadly the property is still empty and with a harsh winter ahead is likely to suffer more damage being left empty, than it would housing squatters (most of whom want a nice home and improve rather than destroy - like the rest of "us")
Add to this that Housing Associations explicitly make a profit, whilst providing social housing - compare the rental prices of the average council property with any provided by housing associations and you'll see a massive discrepancy in who charges what. In many ways, housing association prices are sometimes not that far off private renting prices and sadly not always with better provision of repairs etc.
My money's on Ashley Road's squat earmarked to be sold to the highest property developer bidder - but with the current climate it's more likely to stand empty housing no-one for the next year or two.....
In my experience Housing Associations and council do sometimes evict people just so they can sell the property on the open market and REDUCE the already overstretched pool of social housing . Thanks to people like you they're gettingaway with it more and more.
Go down to the River Street flats behind the massive new Cabot Circus car park. 35 odd council flats left empty and the land is now being sold off to the highest bidder. http://tinyurl.com/6n2ajy
Most squatters are public-spirited people who refuse to allow what are supposed to be social landlords to flog off land to pay fat cat salaries - and Places for People are one of the worst in town. Indeed most of their new build now includes acres of commercial housing so how can they still be a Housing Association?
As usual big cash and back door masonic handshake land deals drive this city's sordid house building local monopoly and the last person that gets a look in is the desperate homeless person who now has to go to Home Choice Bristol online every week and 'bid' for somewhere to live, if your poor, foreign or disabled you can just get stuffed is the crystal clear message from Bristol City Council. http://www.homechoicebristol.co.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/34.aspx
Shame on you for dissing poor people for taking the initiative to get a roof over their head. No wonder you don't want to give your name.
And before you spill too many tears for Places For People consider that they are finding the Housing Corporation's guidelinses on social housing so restrictive of cash generation they are considering changing to become a PLC. http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/Ca...r.doc
Then you can buy shares in them and see your share price go up every time they carry out another eviction.
If you check minutes from the St Pauls unlimited Housing task group meeting last October you'll see that Places for People got Housing Corporation grant to do the property up. I'm suprised Tony Gosling didn't know this because when you read the attendance list it appears he was at the meeting. I expect Places for People want to get the squatters out so they can get the builders or surveyors in, nothing more sinister than that. Either way I think its disgraceful for an SPU area rep to be stirring things up with the sort of nonsense. You may not like housing associations but even when they've sold properties they've done it cheaply to local residents rather than outsiders like other developers. If you don't like them then at least lets have an honest debate instead of replacing the facts with conspiracy theories. St pauls has got a serious housing problem and we have a St Pauls area rep submitting seriously misleading posts which don't help the debate at all. Worse than that he's whipping up a demo in the face of a legitimate eviction which does not make the job of improving this area any easier. And maybe the police could have been doing something more useful in St Pauls than wasting their time at a completely misguided demo? Perhaps Tony Gosling would like to start the debate but telling us why the discussions in the st pauls housing task group last october were not mentioned in his posts?
to all those who are calling this a legitimate eviction... I know it's a moot point but until they go through the proper channels (i.e. actually serve them a notice - which they haven't) it isn't legitimate.
One thing I think it may be worth noting is that in my experience squatting isn't about taking anything away from the community. Most squatted spaces that people call home are maintained as well as possible considering the lack of support and stigma surrounding them. Locked gates and barricades are not a sign to interested people that they are not welcome, they are protection from being made homeless. Also in my experience, squatters do what they can with the little they have to share and help in their local communities, even when there is a huge gap in interests and lifestyle.
Also, please remember that when a squat is evicted the occupants don't just sigh and move on to a pre-determined safe spot. They are homeless. If they are lucky they may have somewhere they can go, or could try to move on to another squat, but it is just as likely that they are in exactly the same position as anyone else who has just lost their home. Now what are you to do when you don't trust the system which is in place to protect you in this moment?
I know I'm straying from the case in hand but I can't help but feel that it is important to look at this, and other similar situations from a wider perspective as well.
Here's a nice little utopian thought for you; If this stuff about 87 being turned into fair housing (i.e. not for profit, and realistically affordable) why not get chatting to the people who have been maintaining it? Or locals who want to help their community? If we are truly after such similar things, why make it into a battle? I don't think you can accuse resisting homelessness of being a hostile or aggressive action. In fact I'd say quite the opposite - like an attempted eviction for example?
I have to say though, regardless of what happens to number 87 when it's present occupants are stripped of their home, I very much doubt it'll be replaced by anything as vibrant, and doubt even more that someone wont be getting richer from it.
Autonomous spaces by their nature are for the benefit of the very people the occupants are supposedly constricting. Work needs to be done on both sides to make this a day to day reality, but it is that and not the act of squatting any building which is the issue here.
Of course, feel free to blast these opinions, for it is this debate which will hopefully achieve things for people in need, and stamp out the mercenariness of those who make simply having somewhere to call home a profit making enterprise.
My grandson has been involved in a project in Easton. I understand that this started as a squat and following a great deal of hard work some sort of loan was organised and the people occupying the building raised the funds to be able to buy it.
If the people who are occupying this building in St Pauls were that concerned about this empty building why don't they look into the possibility of doing the same, they could form some sort of housing co-op.
I am sorry but i don't know more about this project in Easton as my grandson is working nights and I won't see him until later in the day when he comes round and cooks my tea for me.
by b j richie - bristol housing action movementWed Oct 29, 2008 11:52
87 ashley road remains unevicted this morning after the bailiffs were faced with resistance by over 50 people yesterday afternoon.
The owners - places for people - have a number of empty properties in the immediate area - one of which has been empty for the length of time 87 has been squatted. PFP have recently converted the large block of properties directly across the road from rented accommodation to flats for sale. How exactly are the homeless to be housed if all housing is going to be for sale? Squatters don't wait for years as they are tortured by the council through home choice or are warehoused in appalling hostels - they take direct action and make use of empty buildings, some of which can lie derelict for decades. Those who disapprove of this should volunteer for one night to live under one of Bristol's most famous hotels - just bring an old thin sleeping bag and a bottle of cider to cheer themselves up. After all it's only zero degrees centigrade out there.
The place you write about is Kebele and they have done exceptionally well to get to this point. They have worked hard and achieved a great deal.
However, the property was bought a long time ago back when prices were a bit more sane and within reach. The cost was very low and THAT is what made the place possible.
These days the place Kebele is in would cost a fortune to buy.
It is fairly common for squatters to attempt to negotiate with the owners, particularly on long empty places, but it is equally frequent that the owner flatly rejects that idea.
They have their reasons I assume. They don't make a lot of sense but that's how they choose to operate.
Personally I think it would help a great deal if people like yourself spoke to the council/housing associations to register your view that a partnership between empty property owners and squatters is much more favourable than the current evict and move-on scenario.
It certainly wouldn't hurt.
The point of the recently refurbished buildings nearly opposite is important as this seems to be the direction Housing Associations are inclined to be taking.
Formal objections to that too wouldn't go amiss.
Pleased to hear your grandson was involved, I'm pretty sure the project you're speaking of is the Kebele Kulture Project.
And yes, it was succesfully bought and paid for as a Co-Operative after the eviction was resisted. (congrats as deserved to all those that worked hard for it)
This is what many of us in occupation of a certain building would love to do- and fully intend to if at all possible. We would love to renovate the building, have space for Community ventures etc, grow vegetables on the land so we could be self-sufficient and love the building/our home/ neighbourhood AND neighbours, and we have the ability to do all of this better than any company out to make financial gain. we would also not be looking to develop the property save for a new veg patch!! Less building sites more Community Ventures!
Housing Co-ops and/or Collectives are a viable and necessary alternative to renting or buying, and with the current Economic climate, many of us working class folk don't/ wont have a chance to buy a property any other way. Community organisation is the only way to remain secure in many sectors.... ;-) There are many Co-ops in Bristol, and here's to many more!!
As far as research suggests, 87 is intended for the Private housing market and P4P stand to make profit from it- profiting with yet another potential social housing site being sold for the gain of a company.
Do some proper research and find out whats been going on in the area. St Pauls Unlimited has been working with the housing associations and the council with mixed results - some new housing for rent and some sold as shared ownership for local people - but loads still to do. Its all part of a neighbourhood plan that decided where the money has gone. A few years ago people were saying that they wanted less social housing in st pauls so they put government grants into shared ownership housing for local people instead. St Pauls unlimited have tried to make sure if anything gets sold it goes to local residents, including the flats over the road, at a big discount. If people don't like this then they should go along to one of the st pauls unlimited meetings - details on the website - and argue for something different. Its no good waiting until they start building to complain. We should be arguing to get more government grant into st pauls not stopping the housing associations spending what they've got
I was recently talking to one of the Jamaican elders who live in the area. They told me that 20 years ago St Pauls was a very different place to live. There was a great deal of social housing and this created an imbalance in the population. He told me that St pauls was seen by mkany, including Bristol City council as the place to dump lone parents, unemployed people and those on low incomes. He told me that his grand daughter , when she left home had wanted to stay in St Pauls to be near him but had to move out of the area where she grew up becuase as a nurse she could not afford the price of property.
She is now moving back to St Pauls having bought a shared onershiop property. I think she owns part of it and rents the other part.
I don't see a problem in selling off properties that may be difficult to let in order to get a more balanced community in our inner cities.
I am old enough to remenber the riots in St Pauls back in the mid 1980's. From what I have seen St Pauls has moved on a long way from them.
I have been made to feel very welcome in the bloack of flats that i live in and by most people that I have come across.
make this your indymedia front page
Tuesday October 28, 2008 13:39
by Landlord
printable version
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (21 of 21)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21..............people who are homeless as they can't move into the properites becuase they are being squatted?
I have no sympathy for people who squat.
Thanks to the HUGE amount of supporters outside to resist the eviction the cops and baliffs have gone! This is only a temporary reprieve though so support WILL be needed later in the week.
Photos to follow soon.
probably brought attention to themselves with that rooftop protest at Raytheon.
At least some of the squatters were involved...
pics
cops leaving
I just pootled down there and there didn't seem to be anything nefarious going on anymore, just a sizable piquet of watchful hippies and the like.
That's a novel analysis. I wonder how many people are homeless because of:
- The fact that housing is allocated by price
- That house prices have risen so much more than wages to the extent that owning a house becomes a lifelong commitment (if you're lucky) rather than a right
- That councils have sold off the majority of accessible public housing
- That property speculators make millions from keeping properties empty.
Versus
- Some squatters living in some of the vast number of empty properties
Enough people with sympathy (actually it was solidarity) turned up today and the police and bailiffs drove off.
s
It therefore makes it even more important that it is allocated fairly and that those with the greatest need have greater priority over those with lesser need. This is a very difficult thing to assess, and although Choice based lettings is far from being perfect, it is certainly better than a free for all squatting system.
The fact that some property developers make money from leaving properties empty for many years is not relevant here. This is a property that appears to be owned by a not for profit organisation who are trying to help those in greatest need. Why should they have to spend time, money and resources evicting people who have no right to be there in the first place.
I have in the past conducted surveys of housing in St Pauls and I have been horrified by the damage that some squatters have done to the property that they have occupied. I know nothing about the condition of this squat and this comment is not aimed at those who are occupying it.
"The number of people losing their homes after failing to meet their mortgage repayments has climbed sharply, says the UK's financial watchdog.
The number of repossessions in the second quarter of the year was 11,054, up 71% compared with a year earlier."
FSA
If anyone has trouble with baliffs I'm sure well be happy to help. Emergency phone number and e-mail being sorted.
Don't be fooled that just because there is a "social housing provider" that is the reason they want the property. I know of at least one housing association property that was squatted last year by people who needed housing and were in many ways going to protect it from becoming a "crack house" or some other social problem in a neighbourhood with a lot of issues.
After lots of actual negotiation with the landlords, explaining that they were happy to move once the property was due to be re-let as a family house the squatters were told that it was the housing associations intentions to sell it (for a profit i'd imagine). The squatters left at the beginning of 2008 and sadly the property is still empty and with a harsh winter ahead is likely to suffer more damage being left empty, than it would housing squatters (most of whom want a nice home and improve rather than destroy - like the rest of "us")
Add to this that Housing Associations explicitly make a profit, whilst providing social housing - compare the rental prices of the average council property with any provided by housing associations and you'll see a massive discrepancy in who charges what. In many ways, housing association prices are sometimes not that far off private renting prices and sadly not always with better provision of repairs etc.
My money's on Ashley Road's squat earmarked to be sold to the highest property developer bidder - but with the current climate it's more likely to stand empty housing no-one for the next year or two.....
In my experience Housing Associations and council do sometimes evict people just so they can sell the property on the open market and REDUCE the already overstretched pool of social housing . Thanks to people like you they're gettingaway with it more and more.
Go down to the River Street flats behind the massive new Cabot Circus car park. 35 odd council flats left empty and the land is now being sold off to the highest bidder.
http://tinyurl.com/6n2ajy
Most squatters are public-spirited people who refuse to allow what are supposed to be social landlords to flog off land to pay fat cat salaries - and Places for People are one of the worst in town. Indeed most of their new build now includes acres of commercial housing so how can they still be a Housing Association?
As usual big cash and back door masonic handshake land deals drive this city's sordid house building local monopoly and the last person that gets a look in is the desperate homeless person who now has to go to Home Choice Bristol online every week and 'bid' for somewhere to live, if your poor, foreign or disabled you can just get stuffed is the crystal clear message from Bristol City Council. http://www.homechoicebristol.co.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/34.aspx
Shame on you for dissing poor people for taking the initiative to get a roof over their head. No wonder you don't want to give your name.
And before you spill too many tears for Places For People consider that they are finding the Housing Corporation's guidelinses on social housing so restrictive of cash generation they are considering changing to become a PLC.
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/Ca...r.doc
Then you can buy shares in them and see your share price go up every time they carry out another eviction.
Here's the film I made with the BBC about the reality of squatting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-61808566740713...49777
River Street Flats - land underneath (family silver) being flogged off by Bristol City Council to raise cash. http://tinyurl.com/6n2ajy
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&saddr=&daddr=51.45798...=ddw1
Tony Gosling stated "As usual big cash and back door masonic handshake land deals drive this city's sordid house building"
Are you able to prove or document that statement Mr. Gosling?
Can you provide us with names, amounts, dates etc?
See you at the back door M8E
Have you got something against workers that ask questions Mr. Gosling?
Why not share your 'alleged' information with the public?
If you check minutes from the St Pauls unlimited Housing task group meeting last October you'll see that Places for People got Housing Corporation grant to do the property up. I'm suprised Tony Gosling didn't know this because when you read the attendance list it appears he was at the meeting. I expect Places for People want to get the squatters out so they can get the builders or surveyors in, nothing more sinister than that. Either way I think its disgraceful for an SPU area rep to be stirring things up with the sort of nonsense. You may not like housing associations but even when they've sold properties they've done it cheaply to local residents rather than outsiders like other developers. If you don't like them then at least lets have an honest debate instead of replacing the facts with conspiracy theories. St pauls has got a serious housing problem and we have a St Pauls area rep submitting seriously misleading posts which don't help the debate at all. Worse than that he's whipping up a demo in the face of a legitimate eviction which does not make the job of improving this area any easier. And maybe the police could have been doing something more useful in St Pauls than wasting their time at a completely misguided demo? Perhaps Tony Gosling would like to start the debate but telling us why the discussions in the st pauls housing task group last october were not mentioned in his posts?
to all those who are calling this a legitimate eviction... I know it's a moot point but until they go through the proper channels (i.e. actually serve them a notice - which they haven't) it isn't legitimate.
One thing I think it may be worth noting is that in my experience squatting isn't about taking anything away from the community. Most squatted spaces that people call home are maintained as well as possible considering the lack of support and stigma surrounding them. Locked gates and barricades are not a sign to interested people that they are not welcome, they are protection from being made homeless. Also in my experience, squatters do what they can with the little they have to share and help in their local communities, even when there is a huge gap in interests and lifestyle.
Also, please remember that when a squat is evicted the occupants don't just sigh and move on to a pre-determined safe spot. They are homeless. If they are lucky they may have somewhere they can go, or could try to move on to another squat, but it is just as likely that they are in exactly the same position as anyone else who has just lost their home. Now what are you to do when you don't trust the system which is in place to protect you in this moment?
I know I'm straying from the case in hand but I can't help but feel that it is important to look at this, and other similar situations from a wider perspective as well.
Here's a nice little utopian thought for you; If this stuff about 87 being turned into fair housing (i.e. not for profit, and realistically affordable) why not get chatting to the people who have been maintaining it? Or locals who want to help their community? If we are truly after such similar things, why make it into a battle? I don't think you can accuse resisting homelessness of being a hostile or aggressive action. In fact I'd say quite the opposite - like an attempted eviction for example?
I have to say though, regardless of what happens to number 87 when it's present occupants are stripped of their home, I very much doubt it'll be replaced by anything as vibrant, and doubt even more that someone wont be getting richer from it.
Autonomous spaces by their nature are for the benefit of the very people the occupants are supposedly constricting. Work needs to be done on both sides to make this a day to day reality, but it is that and not the act of squatting any building which is the issue here.
Of course, feel free to blast these opinions, for it is this debate which will hopefully achieve things for people in need, and stamp out the mercenariness of those who make simply having somewhere to call home a profit making enterprise.
mick
My grandson has been involved in a project in Easton. I understand that this started as a squat and following a great deal of hard work some sort of loan was organised and the people occupying the building raised the funds to be able to buy it.
If the people who are occupying this building in St Pauls were that concerned about this empty building why don't they look into the possibility of doing the same, they could form some sort of housing co-op.
I am sorry but i don't know more about this project in Easton as my grandson is working nights and I won't see him until later in the day when he comes round and cooks my tea for me.
87 ashley road remains unevicted this morning after the bailiffs were faced with resistance by over 50 people yesterday afternoon.
The owners - places for people - have a number of empty properties in the immediate area - one of which has been empty for the length of time 87 has been squatted. PFP have recently converted the large block of properties directly across the road from rented accommodation to flats for sale. How exactly are the homeless to be housed if all housing is going to be for sale? Squatters don't wait for years as they are tortured by the council through home choice or are warehoused in appalling hostels - they take direct action and make use of empty buildings, some of which can lie derelict for decades. Those who disapprove of this should volunteer for one night to live under one of Bristol's most famous hotels - just bring an old thin sleeping bag and a bottle of cider to cheer themselves up. After all it's only zero degrees centigrade out there.
The place you write about is Kebele and they have done exceptionally well to get to this point. They have worked hard and achieved a great deal.
However, the property was bought a long time ago back when prices were a bit more sane and within reach. The cost was very low and THAT is what made the place possible.
These days the place Kebele is in would cost a fortune to buy.
It is fairly common for squatters to attempt to negotiate with the owners, particularly on long empty places, but it is equally frequent that the owner flatly rejects that idea.
They have their reasons I assume. They don't make a lot of sense but that's how they choose to operate.
Personally I think it would help a great deal if people like yourself spoke to the council/housing associations to register your view that a partnership between empty property owners and squatters is much more favourable than the current evict and move-on scenario.
It certainly wouldn't hurt.
The point of the recently refurbished buildings nearly opposite is important as this seems to be the direction Housing Associations are inclined to be taking.
Formal objections to that too wouldn't go amiss.
Pleased to hear your grandson was involved, I'm pretty sure the project you're speaking of is the Kebele Kulture Project.
And yes, it was succesfully bought and paid for as a Co-Operative after the eviction was resisted. (congrats as deserved to all those that worked hard for it)
This is what many of us in occupation of a certain building would love to do- and fully intend to if at all possible. We would love to renovate the building, have space for Community ventures etc, grow vegetables on the land so we could be self-sufficient and love the building/our home/ neighbourhood AND neighbours, and we have the ability to do all of this better than any company out to make financial gain. we would also not be looking to develop the property save for a new veg patch!! Less building sites more Community Ventures!
Housing Co-ops and/or Collectives are a viable and necessary alternative to renting or buying, and with the current Economic climate, many of us working class folk don't/ wont have a chance to buy a property any other way. Community organisation is the only way to remain secure in many sectors.... ;-) There are many Co-ops in Bristol, and here's to many more!!
As far as research suggests, 87 is intended for the Private housing market and P4P stand to make profit from it- profiting with yet another potential social housing site being sold for the gain of a company.
Do some proper research and find out whats been going on in the area. St Pauls Unlimited has been working with the housing associations and the council with mixed results - some new housing for rent and some sold as shared ownership for local people - but loads still to do. Its all part of a neighbourhood plan that decided where the money has gone. A few years ago people were saying that they wanted less social housing in st pauls so they put government grants into shared ownership housing for local people instead. St Pauls unlimited have tried to make sure if anything gets sold it goes to local residents, including the flats over the road, at a big discount. If people don't like this then they should go along to one of the st pauls unlimited meetings - details on the website - and argue for something different. Its no good waiting until they start building to complain. We should be arguing to get more government grant into st pauls not stopping the housing associations spending what they've got
I was recently talking to one of the Jamaican elders who live in the area. They told me that 20 years ago St Pauls was a very different place to live. There was a great deal of social housing and this created an imbalance in the population. He told me that St pauls was seen by mkany, including Bristol City council as the place to dump lone parents, unemployed people and those on low incomes. He told me that his grand daughter , when she left home had wanted to stay in St Pauls to be near him but had to move out of the area where she grew up becuase as a nurse she could not afford the price of property.
She is now moving back to St Pauls having bought a shared onershiop property. I think she owns part of it and rents the other part.
I don't see a problem in selling off properties that may be difficult to let in order to get a more balanced community in our inner cities.
I am old enough to remenber the riots in St Pauls back in the mid 1980's. From what I have seen St Pauls has moved on a long way from them.
I have been made to feel very welcome in the bloack of flats that i live in and by most people that I have come across.