In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council
there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs
almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.


The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to unnecessary
extremities.

I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes every
day.

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

BTN

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.

I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster. The
fact is that there has always been a working-class population in central
London. The area between Victoria Street, Pimlico and the river was
historically a very poor one containing slums, and Peabody blocks have
replaced slum housing by Aldwych and in Soho. Even in Mayfair there are
social housing blocks (around Balderton Street).

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot
afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to
unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.


They don't all need to - but if *more* of them did, there would be less
crowding on transport and the other benefits that go with it. For a lot of
people, the choice isn't there.


I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice
areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes
every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster.


And I do.

I find the idea that people given a free home can choose where they live,
while those who work hard and pay tax are often forced into living where
they can afford it contemptibly unfair. Although not surprising in this
country, admittedly.

If I actually had to work in Westminster, I think I'd be even more angry at
this situation.

Having given up on London, I've been searching hard for a flat close to my
office lately - somewhere cheap and not particularly good. There are lots of
such places in central Ipswich, lots of them unoccupied, and practically
none of them are on the market to either buy or let because they all belong
to housing associations and are intended for people that don't need to be
close to my office. Or indeed any office.

Instead, I'm facing pressure to live somewhere 'more desirable' (expensive)
miles away from the town centre and necessitating a car journey. Typically
everything on the market is aimed at conventional, conformist 'families' and
miles from my own personal requirements. ****s.

The biggest ****ing irony of all is that there are people in Suffolk who
commute daily into London...


Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually
able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport
costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced
disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?


Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a second,
but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a world of
greater choice.

BTN

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...


The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot
afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to
unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.



They don't all need to - but if *more* of them did, there would be less
crowding on transport and the other benefits that go with it. For a lot of
people, the choice isn't there.



I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice
areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes
every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster.



And I do.

I find the idea that people given a free home can choose where they live,
while those who work hard and pay tax are often forced into living where
they can afford it contemptibly unfair. Although not surprising in this
country, admittedly.

If I actually had to work in Westminster, I think I'd be even more angry at
this situation.

Having given up on London, I've been searching hard for a flat close to my
office lately - somewhere cheap and not particularly good. There are lots of
such places in central Ipswich, lots of them unoccupied, and practically
none of them are on the market to either buy or let because they all belong
to housing associations and are intended for people that don't need to be
close to my office. Or indeed any office.

Instead, I'm facing pressure to live somewhere 'more desirable' (expensive)
miles away from the town centre and necessitating a car journey. Typically
everything on the market is aimed at conventional, conformist 'families' and
miles from my own personal requirements. ****s.

The biggest ****ing irony of all is that there are people in Suffolk who
commute daily into London...

I can understand why you are upset that it's so difficult for many
people to get a place close to work in London, but don't forget that
whilst you *can* afford to commute (whether you like it or not), that's
not the case for a significant number of workers in central London who
don't have nice office jobs.

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually
able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport
costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced
disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?



Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a second,
but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a world of
greater choice.

BTN




--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Dave Arquati
writes
Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a
second, but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a
world of greater choice.
BTN
I'm sure you'll find a lot of jobs up here in Cumbria, they may not pat
well but you won't have the commute, will you?
--
Clive Coleman

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.

They don't all need to - but if *more* of them did, there would be less
crowding on transport and the other benefits that go with it.

And a lot more crowding in the centres of cities, for which the
infrastructure is not there.

I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster.

And I do.

I find the idea that people given a free home can choose where they live,
while those who work hard and pay tax are often forced into living where
they can afford it contemptibly unfair. Although not surprising in this
country, admittedly.

1) Social housing is not free. The residents must pay rent.
2) The vast majority of them work hard and pay tax. The largest group of
people in Westminster who neither work hard nor pay tax are the very
rich who live off investments and family trusts.
3) The residents do not 'choose where they live' in any real sense. They
are the local working-class population and their descendants who have
lived in central London for generations and only now find it difficult
to afford open-market prices.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?

Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a second,
but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a world of
greater choice.

You were just arguing against choice for those in the social housing
sector. I want to live in a world where choice is available to everybody
from all backgrounds whereas you seem to want your own choice and deny
it to others.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.