After this one I commented on earlier in this thread:
So according to your system rich people with lots of spare cash can choose whether or not to convert their homes into multiple occupancy
and others such as this not directly picked up:
At least 1.5 million houses are second homes. Fill these up permanently and there would be no need for extra house building in Forest Hill.
we have another cheap debating trick from Michael, very similar to this one where he tries to win a point by ludicous exaggerations of the other person's position:
Anyway, I've tried to explain the point of view from people who I know were in that workshop [for Local Assembly co-ordinating group members, in which various amenity society members made clear their opposition to conversions]. I hope that most people will see that their concerns are valid in certain contexts. A necessary force against those who would like to see South London turned into Nothing but Towers.
In this case
I don't think is the solution is bulldozing streets in Forest Hill
Please, Michael, get a grip.
Search
Help
| 
