(MintPress) – Much of what the world thinks it knows about East London was probably learned over the past week and a half during tributes to the Olympic Games. A sprawling Olympic park with state-of-the-art athletic facilities and contemporary apartment-style living for the athletes defines East London during the pomp and circumstance of these Games. Conceptually and logistically, London has spent billions of dollars to be the host city, and while the media, tourists and athletes live large, the city’s past has been brushed under the rug like unsightly crumbs.
It’s not unprecedented for a city to tidy up prior to its big moment in front of the world, but the sanitization of a city has knowingly come at the expense of those less fortunate. During Beijing’s 2008 Olympics, the city made a concerted effort to clean up its image, which included shipping out pollution and encouraging beggars and prostitutes to stay away from the Olympic site. But the homeless population suffered when the city shipped out its recyclables because it took away the prospects of trading the bottles in for 10 cents, oftentimes their own source of income.
“Where can I go? Please tell me where I can go if I want to leave this place?” Lao Zhang, a homeless Beijinger said in 2008. “There is no place for me to go to. I was counting on collecting plastic bottles for a living. But they don’t allow us to do it anymore. How can I make a living? I don’t know what to do. I have no tears left to cry.”
During the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, the city struggled to block off its Downtown Eastside, which had high rates of homelessness and drug use. The city encouraged visitors and athletes to stay at the Olympic park or visit the mountainous regions.
But in London, the city’s east side has undergone a transformation from what locals are used to. Olympic Stadium now sits on a site that was once a toxic waste dump. And the influxes of tourists have taken residence in living quarters built on slums once occupied by the homeless.
Adding to the trend
Homelessness is London has been on a steady rise for years, but a report in 2009 showed a dramatic spike in rough sleepers, as they are called. The report detailed a 15 percent increase in homelessness from the year prior, with much of the cases being blamed on a fledging economy. Critics say state-sponsored social housing has failed to accommodate the needs of the homeless, which can include chemical dependency and mental illness.
A survey of 200 homeless people in East London found that 85 percent had a diagnosed mental health problem or voiced concerns about their mental state. Another 65 percent said they used alcohol or drugs because it made coping with their living situation easier. As a result, London has shopped the homeless around the country like an inconvenient commodity by calling housing associations as far as 160 miles away from the city to find a temporary place for them to stay.
A new demographic of homeless people have also come to forefront as a direct result of the Olympics. Many tenants who lived in close proximity to Olympic Park were evicted by their landlords prior to the Olympics so they could charge a premium price for rent to tourists and visitors. The British housing charity Shelter said agents are writing clauses in rental leases that evict tenants for the duration of the Olympics without providing an alternative housing option.
NBC News reported that one East London neighborhood could charge $475 a week for a one-bedroom apartment under normal conditions. Accounting for the inflation created by the Olympics, that same apartment is now going for $2,575 per week – a rate that average tenants are unable to afford, thus forcing them to leave.
Legally, landlords can give renters the ultimatum of staying or going during a temporary price hike in accordance with the United Kingdom’s Housing Act of 1988. Chris Hellings, a supervisor for Britain’s National Landlords Association, told MSNBC that renters are powerless with the Olympics in town.
“If a landlord comes with a new tenancy agreement and says, ‘Sign it and stay or go,’ there’s nothing [tenants] can do,” Hellings said. “They either have to take it or go.”
Boroughs outside of London have said they are unable to accommodate the homeless – whether they are temporary or long term. Newham Council, a borough east of London and one of the country’s poorest areas, said it already deals with poverty and the borough’s mayor, Sir Robin Wales, said the rent policy is bleeding the borough’s resources to help those in need.
“We are one of the poorest areas in the country, we have massive overcrowding, the people who are here we are trying to deal with,” the mayor said. “What happens? The government, they pursue policies that push people out from the center of London out to here. There just isn’t the capacity to deal with them and we end up chasing round the country trying to deal with people who are in need. It is not a policy, I have to say, that I am particularly keen on or particularly want.”
Toxic troubles?
Prior to London being awarded the 2012 Olympics, the 500-acre site where Olympic Park now sits was the cause of concern when it was discovered that the land contained a high quantity of toxic industrial solvents. The site was once occupied by the Banner Chemicals Group, but vacated by the group in 2006. The Banner Group said the land was clean upon its departure but tests of the area suggested otherwise.
The British Environment Agency insisted that all toxic compounds – which included radium, polonium, uranium and thorium – were removed to the tune of a $19 million project, which was put on the backs of taxpayers. Government officials have said that the Banner Group should be obligated to foot the bill, but no conclusive evidence suggests that the sole actions of the Banner Group created the totality of the pollutants found.
“We are talking about a lot of public money here, and it’s money that could have been better spent buying more electric cars for the Olympic fleet or installing more renewable electricity,” said Darren Johnson, chairman of the London assembly environment committee. “The polluter should pay, and I plan to raise this issue formally with the mayor of London.”
Concerns still linger about the possible health effects of the cleanup, as something as small as dust from any chemicals residue could still pose a serious radiological hazard. Documents maintained during the cleanup suggest that there was inadequate dust suppression at the site until further measures were taken well into the cleanup process.
Health effects of many of the contaminants include liver disease, potential birth defects, various forms of cancer and kidney damage. Stuart Hayes, a hydrogeologist at the Environment Agency, told the Guardian that the project was a very large undertaking for the city.
“We thought that this would be a dirty site but it turned out to be much worse than we expected, grossly contaminated,” he said.