Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by The _Don, Aug 21, 2012.
Council housing sell off 'will create ghettos' - Telegraph
It's not clear to me who is to buy the houses. The tenants?
Sounds to me like social engineering.
There are already 'ghettos' in nearly every big city in the UK.
What happenned to the money from the previous council house sales?
Paid to the councils. There were restrictions on how they used it.
The houses will be sold to the private market and the monies will go to build more affordable homes for those displaced.
IF all of the considerable amount of money that could be raised was used to build new social housing then a lot of waiting lists would be reduced and many people would eventually get the housing they need. Also a lot of work would be generated for the building industry, which would need to employ more people. They are major plus points that cannot be ignored.
BUT will it mean that it leads to the creation of a shortage of affordable homes for the lower paid who are currently working in those expensive areas? People like nurses, teachers, firemen, cleaners, clerks, etc. The answer is inevitably yes, but to what extent? Would it be a problem large enough to put an end to the proposals? How many of the people living in the currently expensive social housing are actually working in those service industries that need them locally? Would those services be prepared to pay more for staff in those areas?
AND what about the "ghetto" question? Why do we have this perception that disadvantaged people living together leads to the creation of ghettos? I can only suggest that it is they who ultimately create the conditions in which they find themselves. Living next door to a wealthy family isn't going to make their gardens tidier nor, in itself, prevent the use of drugs. It's always hoped that integration leads to a greater sense of community pride, but is this really so? But in reality doesn't the closeness of wealthier families lead to an even greater sense of injustice on the part of the disadvantaged? Don't many become even more disgruntled and want to give up? Meanwhile many currently in the "ghettos" could be striving to break free from their environment by working harder. I know many people living in such circumstances and they all are trying their utmost to better themselves so that they can move to a more desirable location. People living in poorer areas need encouragement and support, they don't need to have the success of others rammed down their throats. So are "ghettos" in the UK such a bad thing? And if so, whose fault is it?
Oh no - they are a great way to engender social cohesion and a sense of belonging !
But they have a home.
Expensive and affordable - by which criteria? The criterion of 'more money can be made by selling to developers' and those previously housed can be moved some distance from their work place thus increasing their living costs and ultimately the cost of the service they provide in their work capacity, assuming they can still afford to travel to work.
And if they can't, who will do their work and what wage will they need to make it possible?
There is a desperate need for more housing - so why hand these ones over to developers? Just build more. It will be money well spent in the short and long term.
Who wants to start the spread on the first post to mention Margaret Thatcher?
Post #13-#15, buy or sell?
The houses are sold on the private market when they become vacant.
To me, that's where the problem falls down - even fat bankers aren't daft enough to fork out top market price to live in the middle of a social housing estate.
Some of the numbers from the article are debatable too - £4.5 billion per year, resulting in 170,000 houses - can you really build a new "dwelling" for £26.5k in a brownfield site (because these can all be situated within existing city and town boundaries).
I'll agree that's the theory - but does it work?
Or are some of your numbers debateable? £4,500,000,000 divided by 170,000 = £264,706 when I was at school (admitedly a very long time ago!). That's more than the 5-bed house next to me is priced at for sale! And the figures quoted in the report were 80-170,000 new homes, so the other extreme is £562,500 per house - enough for a small place near MOCAS!
more like a "pied a terre" than the main estate
The original report is provided here: Ending Expensive Social Tenancies: Fairness, higher growth and more homes
Here's a synopsis:
Of course there will be tenants who lose out, but in my opinion this proposal is for the benefit of the majority.
I've never understood why it's the responsibility of the State to provide subsidised housing, or indeed free housing.
If you can't afford to buy or rent in a certain area then move somewhere where you can afford to live, whether it's a different neighbourhood or a smaller place in the same area. If moving involves a commute you don't fancy then move job or get a better job that makes the commute worthwhile. If you need more room because you have umpteen kids then stop making them until you can afford to look after them.
Is it rocket science?
Not rocket science. The trouble is we're not allowed to say that. When I was first married and left my parents home in London I had to move to Ipswich because I couldn't afford to buy a house anywhere near them. And 27 years later after working hard enough to afford to return to London, the ex Mrs KE got the house so once again I had to move out to the sticks to afford a new home. But as a hard working employee my social hardships were of no consequence. Had I been on the dole I could have insisted on remaining exactly where I was both times. Ain't equality great?!!
Is it a responsibility? Or just something they can do to offer citizens the only (short of inherited property) alternative to the rapacious banking sector?
Might be worth factoring in (or out) the effect on the economy of young couples sitting on their parent's sofa for the next however many years while they scrimp and save to get a mortgage deposit together.
Housing is a lifetime issue not to be treated as a cash cow for the greedy.