Games Monitor

Skip to main content.

Compulsory Purchase

Locals in Sochi Fight Off Olympics

.: © Vasily Shaposhnikov.: © Vasily Shaposhnikov

Residents of Imeret lowland, which has been chosen to as a construction site for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, clashed with bailiffs and police yesterday, July 22, 2008. Armed with sticks and bottles of incendiary mixture, 200 locals defended their houses.


| | |

What happened to the relocated businesses? LDA FOI response

According to the LDA the four Olympic Boroughs, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest lost a total of 93 companies employing 1245 staff as a result of the relocation of businesses. A total of 209 businesses employing 4964 staff were relocated. 25 businesses closed completely with a loss of 65 jobs. A further 10 businesses employing 54 staff are not accounted for.


| | | | |

‘A prime opportunity for the property industry.’

This article has been slightly amended see sections [ ]

Recent reports in the Press (see attachment) reveal that businesses evicted to make way for the Olympics are still having to battle with the LDA over compensation. Looking back in time to reports published by the media can provide an interesting insight into the attitudes of the Olympic team (and how the media approached the project) and the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of the programme. One such report was contained in the Property Week Newsletter of 05.12.03 (see attachment) which included some particularly chilling assertions for the residents at Clays Lane.


| | | | |

Perjured evidence before a House of Commons Select Committee.

It is said History is written by the winners. Committees from both the House of Commons and the Greater London Assembly Committees have held hearings into the Olympics. Apparently subjects are chosen on the basis of who makes the most noise. Amongst the topics discussed by the relevant House of Commons Select Committee has been the relocation of communities, be they residents, allotment holders, businesses or users, from the Olympic Park. The rule of subject choice also seems to apply when it comes to dishing out invitations to give ‘evidence’. Most people are left out of the magic circle and are unaware the opportunity might even exist. Not so those who run these programmes. They get to give their version of events as they either they get asked along or are warned the committee will be meeting and ask to go. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to either set of committees to track down those who were actually moved to ask them how they felt about their eviction and how it was handled.


| | | | | |

Beyond Belief in the Olympic Zone

There is a credibility gap between what people in local voluntary bodies have been told by professionals in the Olympic industry and what local volunteers' experiences of outcomes has been. This has happened most to those local voluntary bodies which have been affected by relocations from sites within the boundaries of the Olympic Park.


| | | | | | | | |

London 2012 Olympic evictions: Jowell's 'Parliamentary' answer and an evictee's response

Tessa Jowell was recently asked in the House of Commons about the rehousing of those displaced by the Olympics. Her written response can be seen below. It is followed by a response from a resident who was evicted.


| | | | | | |

Day of the Sheriff - Monday 23rd July

Monday 23rd July is the day the Sheriff will enforce the Notice of Entry against tenants at Clays Lane. In his letter to tenants, Andrew Gaskell of the LDA says ‘we are grateful for the cooperation we have received to date’. However, this cooperation did not lead to any consultation about the closure date or information as to why that date was so critical. Indeed, we understand it may be related to the building of a scaffold to take down the power lines which cross the estate. However, if this is the case then we have to ask why this is a problem for Clays Lane tenants when the Travellers will still be occupying their site and the cables cross their pitches. The power lines will not be live so tenants will not be in any danger.


| | |

Syndicate content