Forum Topic

London Councils Cash Flow

While I'm at it, I have a question to ask.  It's been bugging me for ages.Why do councils say they're broke when they have MILLIONS stashed away?  Recently I heard that Ealing has about 125 million. That make "cash strapped" a lie.Now, I can appreciate that they need some contingency reserve but isn't this amount somewhat over the top? Shouldn't they be spending it on the borough instead of counting it?They can't take it with them!

Sarah Vickers ● 3442d9 Comments

Doesn't seem to be going to the right people in Ealing with Julian Bell as leader. For best part of a decade, while people have not been able to afford a home here, he has occupied two. The worst thing is one of these is a housing association social home at only 30% market rent. No wonder people are sick of politicians like him looking after themselves and vote for the likes of Trump instead.

Nick Johnson ● 3436d

Yes the phrase 'affordable Housing' can be very misleading, my first thoughts from that was for the needy but that isn't usually the case is it.

Janice Evans ● 3436d

We've asked the Council to tell us what they are doing with the Schedule 106 money from all the high rise in North Acton. We hope to have the report by early December at the latest.

Maire Lowe ● 3436d

The list I read some time ago was on the wealth of councils.Remember that buildings and land have to be maintained.  When people give cash in hand to unlicensed waste carriers to remove waste that very often ends up fly-tipped on parks and open land and that is costly to have cleared.  It was interesting to read about Patrik Schumacher's controversial speech the other day.  Is this the kind of city that we want? Is this where we are heading?

Philippa Bond ● 3437d

Everybody has their own angle and their own agenda and each is fighting for the biggest slice of the pizza.  They don't all play fair - and as you will have seen with the referendum they definitely don't all tell what other people would consider to be the truth.  It's just another playground and some are true friends and allies and some are just in it for what they can get - and that can be now or later.Sometimes there are promises which are later wriggled out of or perhaps due to small print or moving of goal posts or changes in the law or markets and Section 106 Agreements or even just pressure may be reneged on.  There is a constant search for loopholes to get around legislation.  When you hear phrases like "affordable housing" you always have to think further as in "affordable to whom".  "Affordable housing" is definitely not the same as and shouldn't be confused with "social housing".Just Google "How developers wriggle out of affordable housing provision" and I'm sure you'll find plenty of reading.Do read this:http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2016/08/affordable-housing-affordable-for-who/

Philippa Bond ● 3439d

Can understand there is so much for each project, interesting that buildings and land are included in the cash flow as its not readily available cash, also whats happening with the so called affordable housing if no one can afford to live in the newly built flats, thought that was the reason for them being built.

Janice Evans ● 3440d

They can easily lose it though!  Cash can also be ring-fenced for particular projects and so not free for use for just anything.It helps when people can earn and look after themselves and don't need to rely on Council services - of which there are fewer and fewer.  Unfortunately privatisation doesn't always mean cheaper or better in the long run. Care homes can go bust and then those living in them have to be re-housed.  Time is expensive and Councils have had their funding reduced by Central Government.  Often the consequences of cost-cutting aren't quite what was intended.Here is an interesting website:http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/key-facts/overview-of-london-boroughs/Perhaps somebody else will suggest something else for you.The wealth is often in buildings (which have to be maintained) and land not cash.  Too many of OUR green spaces (see Metropolitan Open Land) are being built on and there are often campaigns when Councils seek to build on these areas eg parks and allotments.  It would be good we saw the supporting infrastructure being planned and built together - instead of some of the flats which most of those who need homes can't afford to live in - and NOT on our green spaces as a afterthought (but really because it is easier to later make a good case for the need). Unfortunately green space once lost is very unlikely to be retrieved.Political ideology is the reason for most of the argument.Campaign to save our parks - please look at it - and also please sign:http://bit.ly/2coGutk

Philippa Bond ● 3441d

I am hoping so...

Sarah Vickers ● 3442d

Think its all to do with how much they are allowed to spend, maybe someone can enlighten us.

Janice Evans ● 3442d