A London borough is transferring most of its social housing to a private developer. What is it thinking?

The Broadwater Farm estate. Image: Iridescenti/Wikimedia Commons.

The Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV), the North London borough’s revolutionary regeneration joint venture/hair-brained public asset giveaway (delete according to ideological persuasion), is thought to be one of the largest transfers of public land into a public/private partnership ever. It involves property estimated to be worth a total of £2bn once the redevelopment has been completed.

And it’s the opposite of the recently mooted, then dodged, Tory pledge to build more council housing. For how can councils build anything if they’ve given all their land and property away?

While public-private partnerships are by no means new, this carefree transfer of private land is part of a broader, scarier, yard sale of public property (the stuff that we all collectively own) to private companies (the things that no one is 100 per cent sure who really owns).

Here’s how the HDV works. Haringey Council will enter into a 50:50 joint partnership with Australian developer Lendlease. The former brings to the table some highly attractive parcels of what it considers to be 'low value' developable land (that is, housing estates and community buildings); Lendlease puts in the capital and construction expertise.

Profits from the sale and rent of the new housing will be shared by the joint-venture company’s partners, providing an income for the council. Bingo! Lots of shiny new apartments on the site of some shabby blocks that are letting the borough’s new image down, some nice new well-heeled, low-maintenance homeowners making the area look good, housing targets ticked off, and some much-needed moolah for the council to spend on everyday civic essentials such as libraries, community care, local infrastructure, and bin collections.

But if it’s such a good deal, why is the Labour council facing such opposition? Why is it opposed by, amongst others, 20 Labour members of Haringey Council (and allegedly a couple of the cabinet); the 19 Labour-party branch leaders across Hornsey & Wood Green; local Labour MPs; local campaign groups 2bn Pound Gamble, Stop the HDV, and Haringey Defend Council Housing; and poet/writer/national treasure Michael Rosen?

And why should those of us who don’t live in Haringey be absolutely terrified? Here are eight reasons.

1. The income is uncertain

The time period between tenants moving out and new apartments being completed and able to provide a new rental stream could leave the council with a hiatus in its income. Throw in long-term uncertainty over interest rates, prime ministers, Brexit and so on, and it becomes impossible to calculate the costs and profits of any redevelopment project. When it's on such a large scale, the risk is even greater.

Such fluctuations help give developers leverage to renege on agreed percentages of affordable housing, arguing that they would make the scheme not ‘viable’ – a weasel word, previously seen in the redevelopments of south London's Heygate Estate, Battersea Power Station, and so on. Allow developers to dodge the 35 per cent ‘affordable’ housing quota (even though, you’ll recall, it’s often not actually affordable) renders any national legislation on such quotas meaningless.

 2. What if the developer pulls out?

The joint venture agreement is currently for 20 years – but what if Lendlease decides to pull out during that time? Or goes bust? Or is taken over? These are important questions, to which the answers aren’t currently clear.

3. The existing residents aren’t necessarily the ones who’ll benefit

Stop me if this sounds familiar. Haringey’s headline promise is that “council tenants have a guaranteed right of return on equivalent terms”, once the new homes are built.

But according to Haringey Defend Council Housing – a campaign group, which has put in the hours to wade through redacted documents, 100-page reports and cabinet meeting minutes so that you don’t have to – the HDV’s actual business plans “will prioritise a single move for residents rather than right of return” and “do not allow for rehousing of housing association tenants”.

 You may recall that at the aforementioned Heygate Estate (now rebranded Elephant Park) similar promises were made; only three council families returned. Meanwhile, according to campaign groups 35percent.org and heygatewashome.org, home owners forced to sell found themselves quite a few bob short of what they needed to buy back into the area. But that was a different borough and a different – oh wait, I beg your pardon, that was Lendlease again.

In other words, there is a growing disconnect between improving things for a borough and improving them for its inhabitants. The space someone's home once occupied might have become a fragrant oasis, but they’ve been forced out to a sink estate in Essex. 

4. Communities will disappear

If residents are shipped out of an area while demolition and rebuilding take place, they won't be able to put their lives on hold for five, ten, or more years in the hope of moving back. A new community will, over time, grow in its place, engineered by teams of well-meaning placemakers naming tower blocks after former Spurs strikers. But the people who currently rely on regular contact from a local support network – the elderly; those with physical/psychological/medical needs; parents; the self-employed, and locally employed – will be cut adrift.


5. This is one of the country’s most deprived boroughs

The HDV will need to generate enough money to a) build new homes and b) make a profit for Lendlease shareholders. So some of the new homes will need to be sold or rented for as much money as the HDV can get away with.

“It's just wrong to have a housing policy that's reliant on building loads of housing at levels that people already living here can't afford,” says Paul Burnham of Haringey Defend Council Housing. “That is going to drive out of the area people who live here at the moment. It's US-style social policy. It doesn't work. We don't want it. And we're not going to have it.”

6. Even the local MPs are against it

In a Labour-on-Labour epistolary punch up, local Labour MPs David Lammy (Tottehnam) and Catherine West (Hornsey & Wood Green) wrote to council leader Claire Kober on 3 July insisting that there should be “no overall reduction in the number of homes in the borough that are wholly owned and managed by the council”. Sadly councils are under no obligation to take any notice. 

7. No one asked the people whose homes are about to be demolished

Yes, the old “no public consultation” chestnut.

At one of the first HDV public meetings on the Northumberland Park Estate earlier this year, some residents recalled being surveyed on whether they wanted improvements to their housing – but not whether they wanted their existing estate, including the primary school, bulldozed and replaced with private housing while they went and lived somewhere else.

Okay, consultation costs money, and money's in short supply for local authorities, but it’s still a legal requirement – a point the campaign group Stop Haringey Development Vehicle (SHDV) is helpfully pointing out by taking the council/HDV to judicial review. (The hearing is set for 25-26 October.)

An alternative, for which HDCH is currently campaigning, is for residents to be given a vote on demolition of their estates. That would mean regeneration were done as a genuine denizen-developer partnership, not via global companies with no local accountability. If successful (it's a long shot), this too could set a national precedent.

8. This is not how we should be funding essential services

Councils are skint – so the trend for selling off assets, or exchanging planning permissions for handouts from private developers in the form of Community Infrastructure Levies or Section 106 monies, would seem to make sense.

This is in the same way that swapping your shared house for a roast dinner might make sense if you were hungry, until you’ve eaten the dinner, are still hungry, have nothing to live in and nothing else to swap, and have three ex-housemates protesting that they can't move to Arse-End on Sea because it's 250 miles from where they work.

Rather than continuing to excuse councils, shouldn't we be addressing how else they might find money or provide services?

* * * * *

All of the above has already been seen, to some degree, on other regeneration projects. What is particularly terrifying about the HDV is its scale. A Labour borough is saying it has no option but to hand the majority of its land over to private developers, and ignoring the voice of its citizens. It is an ideological admission of defeat, a wholesale abandonment of the public to the private, a declaration that physical place matters more than actual people.

And when we no longer own our own cities – what then? 

The judicial review of the HDV will be held Wednesday and Thursday (25-26 October) at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London WC2. Members of the Stop the HDV Campaign and other Haringey residents will be protesting outside from 9am both days.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Urgently needed: Timely, more detailed standardized data on US evictions

Graffiti asking for rent forgiveness is seen on a wall on La Brea Ave amid the Covid-19 pandemic in Los Angeles, California. (Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images)

Last week the Eviction Lab, a team of eviction and housing policy researchers at Princeton University, released a new dashboard that provides timely, city-level US eviction data for use in monitoring eviction spikes and other trends as Covid restrictions ease. 

In 2018, Eviction Lab released the first national database of evictions in the US. The nationwide data are granular, going down to the level of a few city blocks in some places, but lagged by several years, so their use is more geared toward understanding the scope of the problem across the US, rather than making timely decisions to help city residents now. 

Eviction Lab’s new Eviction Tracking System, however, provides weekly updates on evictions by city and compares them to baseline data from past years. The researchers hope that the timeliness of this new data will allow for quicker action in the event that the US begins to see a wave of evictions once Covid eviction moratoriums are phased out.

But, due to a lack of standardization in eviction filings across the US, the Eviction Tracking System is currently available for only 11 cities, leaving many more places facing a high risk of eviction spikes out of the loop.

Each city included in the Eviction Tracking System shows rolling weekly and monthly eviction filing counts. A percent change is calculated by comparing current eviction filings to baseline eviction filings for a quick look at whether a city might be experiencing an uptick.

Timely US eviction data for a handful of cities is now available from the Eviction Lab. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

The tracking system also provides a more detailed report on each city’s Covid eviction moratorium efforts and more granular geographic and demographic information on the city’s evictions.

Click to the above image to see a city-level eviction map, in this case for Pittsburgh. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

As part of their Covid Resource, the Eviction Lab together with Columbia Law School professor Emily Benfer also compiled a scorecard for each US state that ranks Covid-related tenant protection measures. A total of 15 of the 50 US states plus Washington DC received a score of zero because those states provided little if any protections.

CityMetric talked with Peter Hepburn, an assistant professor at Rutgers who just finished a two-year postdoc at the Eviction Lab, and Jeff Reichman, principal at the data science research firm January Advisors, about the struggles involved in collecting and analysing eviction data across the US.

Perhaps the most notable hurdle both researchers addressed is that there’s no standardized reporting of evictions across jurisdictions. Most evictions are reported to county-level governments, however what “reporting” means differs among and even within each county. 

In Texas, evictions go through the Justice of the Peace Courts. In Virginia they’re processed by General District Courts. Judges in Milwaukee are sealing more eviction case documents that come through their courtroom. In Austin, Pittsburgh and Richmond, eviction addresses aren’t available online but ZIP codes are. In Denver you have to pay about $7 to access a single eviction filing. In Alabama*, it’s $10 per eviction filing. 

Once the filings are acquired, the next barrier is normalizing them. While some jurisdictions share reporting systems, many have different fields and formats. Some are digital, but many are images of text or handwritten documents that require optical character recognition programs and natural language processors in order to translate them into data. That, or the filings would have to be processed by hand. 

“There's not enough interns in the world to do that work,” says Hepburn.


Aggregating data from all of these sources and normalizing them requires knowledge of the nuances in each jurisdiction. “It would be nice if, for every region, we were looking for the exact same things,” says Reichman. “Instead, depending on the vendor that they use, and depending on how the data is made available, it's a puzzle for each one.”

In December of 2019, US Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Rob Portman of Ohio introduced a bill that would set up state and local grants aimed at reducing low-income evictions. Included in the bill is a measure to enhance data collection. Hepburn is hopeful that the bill could one day mean an easier job for those trying to analyse eviction data.

That said, Hepburn and Reichman caution against the public release of granular eviction data. 

“In a lot of cases, what this gets used for is for tenant screening services,” says Hepburn. “There are companies that go and collect these data and make them available to landlords to try to check and see if their potential tenants have been previously evicted, or even just filed against for eviction, without any sort of judgement.”

According to research by Eviction Lab principal Matthew Desmond and Tracey Shollenberger, who is now vice president of science at Harvard’s Center for Policing Equity, residents who have been evicted or even just filed against for eviction often have a much harder time finding equal-quality housing in the future. That coupled with evidence that evictions affect minority populations at disproportionate rates can lead to widening racial and economic gaps in neighborhoods.

While opening up raw data on evictions to the public would not be the best option, making timely, granular data available to researchers and government officials can improve the system’s ability to respond to potential eviction crises.

Data on current and historical evictions can help city officials spot trends in who is getting evicted and who is doing the evicting. It can help inform new housing policy and reform old housing policies that may put more vulnerable citizens at undue risk.

Hepburn says that the Eviction Lab is currently working, in part with the ACLU, on research that shows the extent to which Black renters are disproportionately affected by the eviction crisis.

More broadly, says Hepburn, better data can help provide some oversight for a system which is largely unregulated.

“It's the Wild West, right? There's no right to representation. Defendants have no right to counsel. They're on their own here,” says Hepburn. “I mean, this is people losing their homes, and they're being processed in bulk very quickly by the system that has very little oversight, and that we know very little about.”

A 2018 report by the Philadelphia Mayor’s Taskforce on Eviction Prevention and Response found that of Philadelphia’s 22,500 eviction cases in 2016, tenants had legal representation in only 9% of them.

Included in Hepburn’s eviction data wishlist is an additional ask, something that is rarely included in any of the filings that the Eviction Lab and January Advisors have been poring over for years. He wants to know the relationship between money owed and monthly rent.

“At the individual level, if you were found to owe $1,500, was that on an apartment that's $1,500 a month? Or was it an apartment that's $500 a month? Because that makes a big difference in the story you're telling about the nature of the crisis, right? If you're letting somebody get three months behind that's different than evicting them immediately once they fall behind,” Hepburn says.

Now that the Eviction Tracking System has been out for a week, Hepburn says one of the next steps is to start reaching out to state and local governments to see if they can garner interest in the project. While he’s not ready to name any names just yet, he says that they’re already involved in talks with some interested parties.

*Correction: This story initially misidentified a jurisdiction that charges $10 to access an eviction filing. It is the state of Alabama, not the city of Atlanta. Also, at the time of publication, Peter Hepburn was an assistant professor at Rutgers, not an associate professor.

Alexandra Kanik is a data reporter at CityMetric.