Sixty-eight flats in £2bn luxury Kensington block to be given to Grenfell Tower families

A number of Grenfell Tower families are to be housed in a £2bn luxury development, which boasts a private cinema and swimming pool.

Brand-new flats in a Kensington High Street development have been bought for those who lost their homes in the blaze, according to the Evening Standard.

The price of private flats in the block starts at £1.5m.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/sixty-eight-flats-2bn-luxury-kensington-block-given-grenfell/

Good news, but might cause a bit of sour grapes for the rest of the people living in the remaining high rise.

HoratioTarr wrote:Good news, but might cause a bit of sour grapes for the rest of the people living in the remaining high rise.

What i was wondering is how they will decide who get these flats?

Not sure on the numbers, is this enough to rehouse everyone?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Good news, but might cause a bit of sour grapes for the rest of the people living in the remaining high rise.

What i was wondering is how they will decide who get these flats?

Not sure on the numbers, is this enough to rehouse everyone?

Depends on how many families, I guess. You may have a family of four or five. How many flats were there in that high rise?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

What i was wondering is how they will decide who get these flats?

Not sure on the numbers, is this enough to rehouse everyone?

Depends on how many families, I guess.   You may have a family of four or five.   How many flats were there in that high rise?

127 Flats.

They won't get to stay there - I'd put all my money on that.....poor people in luxury apartments? Don't think so. They'll be shipped out before they've had a chance to unpack their boxes.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Depends on how many families, I guess.   You may have a family of four or five.   How many flats were there in that high rise?

127 Flats.

one has to consider how many people died though.   Could be the top 30 or so flats nobody survived.  But that still might leave it short.

Says in the Mail that 250 people will be housed there. I thought 600 people lived in that tower block? So if 79 died, so far, that leaves 271 who either survived or a number that are dead but unaccounted for.

They won't be staying there, I bet its an interim place until they find elsewhere.

If my house burnt down, will the government give me £5.500 and a rent free posh flat ?

nicko wrote:If my house burnt down,   will the government give me £5.500 and a rent free posh flat ?

No chance

I wonder how many faulty exploding fridges might just go off....

What about the rest of the homeless people who have to live on the street?

All they should be given is temporary accommodation until they can be housed in other council places as and when it becomes available, and based on existing priority system of needs...


Those willing to accept housing in other areas may well get housed sooner than others who want to remain in borough...


What I find amazing is how so many 'highly skilled, hard working and well needed' foreigners are able to turn up in central london and get council housing in the first place...!?

Give 'em tents in a LOCAL park till it's sorted out.

Tommy Monk wrote:

All they should be given is temporary accommodation until they can be housed in other council places as and when it becomes available, and based on existing priority system of needs...

I agree, but perhaps not for the same reason...they don't just need houses or parking places. They lost furniture and clothing, housewares, etc. They need hotels or temporary accommodations.

In the US, our Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) maintains house trailers and mobile homes that can be put into place in times of emergency. Those are the facilities you see after a hurricane or tornado has hit an area.

I wonder how many were insured.

Syl wrote:I wonder how many were insured.

Good question. I bet not many. It's not a priority when you're skint.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:I wonder how many were insured.

Good question.   I bet not many.   It's not a priority when you're skint.

Who says they were skint? Those flats cost a lot to rent.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:I wonder how many were insured.

Good question.   I bet not many.   It's not a priority when you're skint.

Who says they were skint? Those flats cost a lot to rent.

They're council flats. They'll be the cheapest way to rent in London.

I bet the building was insured though...


The council can only give out housing from the housing stock they have, and then only when it becomes available as existing residents leave them...

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Good question.   I bet not many.   It's not a priority when you're skint.

Who says they were skint? Those flats cost a lot to rent.

If you could afford two grand a month for accommodation, would you live in that high rise? I don't think so. If however the state paid for it, you probably would.

I imagine many were receiving housing benefits anyway, so the actual cost of the rents would be immaterial.

If any properties are empty and available in the area I think the residents of Grenfell tower should be rehoused there. I don't think cost should come into it at this time.

The only article so far ive seen to mention rent costs was quills op on other thread... and that was in dollars, not pound sterling... and the picture wasnt even right...

Tommy Monk wrote:The only article so far ive seen to mention rent costs was quills op on other thread... and that was in dollars, not pound sterling... and the picture wasnt even right...

Soz about that...I'll change the picture if it bothers anyone. In the US, every project must set aside certain rentals for Section 8 housing...that's subsidized housing. The landlord gets as much per unit, but the Federal government pays the lion's share. Of course, Section 8 recipients must qualify on the basis of low income and little property. There are some projects--really nice ones--that are totally Section 8, as well. Perhaps Grenfell Block is/was one of those.

Emergency housing comes complete with kitchenware and bedding, towels, brooms, mops, soap, etc., etc., because these people are without their complete life...not just a roof, but everything. A lot of times they use outfitted shipping containers on a temporary basis. Right now, that's what those displaced by this fire are needing.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Who says they were skint? Those flats cost a lot to rent.

They're council flats. They'll be the cheapest way to rent in London.

They're still expensive though.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Who says they were skint? Those flats cost a lot to rent.

If you could afford  two grand a month for accommodation, would you live in that high rise?   I don't think so.   If however the state paid for it, you probably would.

Well I wouldn't, but apparently some of the tenants had bought their flats, so they must like them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

If you could afford  two grand a month for accommodation, would you live in that high rise?   I don't think so.   If however the state paid for it, you probably would.

Well I wouldn't, but apparently some of the tenants had bought their flats, so they must like them.

Like I said, mortgages are generally cheaper per month than rents. And if those flats are council owned then they'll be getting a bargain. Could be they bought them way back in the 80s when they cost next to nothing.

Residents of the luxury development in Kensington, in which Grenfell families are due to be rehoused, have been criticised after voicing their anger and unease over the move.

Speaking to The Guardian, one woman said: “We paid a lot of money to live here, and we worked hard for it.

“Now these people are going to come along, and they won’t even be paying the service charge.”

Another said: "I’m very sad that people have lost their homes, but there are a lot of people here who have bought flats and will now see the values drop.

"It will degrade things. And it opens up a can of worms in the housing market."

And a local added: "North Kensington is not this Kensington. They should be in a place where they are happy, but not here. I don’t want them here."

However, one resident, called AJ, was supportive of the decision.

He said: "It was dreadful, I had friends living there. We gave stuff, and went up and helped for a couple days last week.

“In my eyes everyone should be equal.”

People have been angered by this response. One Twitter user wrote: "This disgraceful attitude comes from a society where people are conditioned to take as much as possible rather than give what you can".

Left-wing columnist Owen Jones suggested: "Nationalise everything these people own please".

Another Twitter user said: "I just can't believe how heartless this is".

Yesterday it was announced that brand-new flats in a Kensington High Street development have been bought for those who lost their homes in the blaze.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/luxury-flat-owners-criticised-unease-grenfell-families-moving/

Good now the rich toffs know how we feel when they're moved down our streets. They say bring them over, but not in their street.

They wouldn't have moaned if they were put in a council street.

Anyhow they won't be there long, they're not flats, more bed sits.

That seems very relevant in todays world...did you compose that?

Syl wrote:That seems very relevant in todays world...did you compose that?

George Michael...

Thanks, didn't know that one.
He was a brilliant songwriter and singer, he also did so much for charities, and he did it all quietly without fuss.
Sadly missed. x

Everyone seems to take more than they need really.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I wouldn't, but apparently some of the tenants had bought their flats, so they must like them.

Like I said, mortgages are generally cheaper per month than rents.   And if those flats are council owned then they'll be getting a bargain.   Could be they bought them way back in the 80s when they cost next to nothing.

Well then you have to ask yourself if someone who can't afford £2000 a month rent is actually "poor". I don't know anyone who could afford that, and I'm not talking about poor people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Like I said, mortgages are generally cheaper per month than rents.   And if those flats are council owned then they'll be getting a bargain.   Could be they bought them way back in the 80s when they cost next to nothing.

Well then you have to ask yourself if someone who can't afford £2000 a month rent is actually "poor". I don't know anyone who could afford that, and I'm not talking about poor people.

Well, if you're on benefits, it won't cost you anything. If they're council owned. So it won't matter how poor you are.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then you have to ask yourself if someone who can't afford £2000 a month rent is actually "poor". I don't know anyone who could afford that, and I'm not talking about poor people.

Well, if you're on benefits, it won't cost you anything.   If they're council owned.   So it won't matter how poor you are.

We don't know that they were all on benefits though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, if you're on benefits, it won't cost you anything.   If they're council owned.   So it won't matter how poor you are.

We don't know that they were all on benefits though.

It's my bet most of them were.

Does it all matter

there is a (desperate) need, and those flats fill that need....

therefore use them....seems like a few "i'm alright jacks" are about to get a dose of reality,,,,

LF said

...seems like a few "i'm alright jacks" are about to get a dose of reality,,,,




They are about to get a dose of 'cultural enrichment'...