Council housing sell off 'will create ghettos'

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think the argument against it is that the government does not want to run business enterprises if it can avoid it... making Councils commercial Landlords is an unnecessary distraction, they have more important work to get on with.

It's just yet more asset stripping, we're running out of things to flog off though.

If the govt cared about affordable housing, it would not have flogged off the olympic village to overseas developers.

Soon enough the we'll be back to 19th century slums, 10 to a room.

This is what happens when we allow ourselves to be governed by millionaires who have never worked in their lives, why should they care about the lives of the little people?
 
oldmedic999 has, perhaps unintentionally, touched on the other elephant in the room: the fact that people who can't afford to buy houses nevertheless see it as their right to do so. This is what drove the excessive demand for mortgages, and the tendency for them to be offered to people with ever smaller deposits (or none at all) and at silly multiples of annual income. Time was when you needed colateral to borrow sizeable sums of money. These days, despite the recent belt-tightening, it seems to be given away like water.
 
It's just yet more asset stripping, we're running out of things to flog off though.

If the govt cared about affordable housing, it would not have flogged off the olympic village to overseas developers.

Soon enough the we'll be back to 19th century slums, 10 to a room.

This is what happens when we allow ourselves to be governed by millionaires who have never worked in their lives, why should they care about the lives of the little people?

While not wanting to get political, can I point out that the olympic village deal was well underway if not concluded while the other lot were in power, and that they did nothing to reverse the sell-offs etc. (we'll let the Gold go by with barely a mention).
 
oldmedic999 has, perhaps unintentionally, touched on the other elephant in the room: the fact that people who can't afford to buy houses nevertheless see it as their right to do so. This is what drove the excessive demand for mortgages, and the tendency for them to be offered to people with ever smaller deposits (or none at all) and at silly multiples of annual income. Time was when you needed colateral to borrow sizeable sums of money. These days, despite the recent belt-tightening, it seems to be given away like water.

People *have* to buy houses in this country as renting is so much more expensive.

Strip out the greed from the housing market, and things would be a lot better.

But instead of providing more affordable housing controlled by local authorities (not greedy private landlords) we're going to flog off what little is left.

Our country is run by morons, greedy morons with their hands in the till at that.
 
oldmedic999 has, perhaps unintentionally, touched on the other elephant in the room: the fact that people who can't afford to buy houses nevertheless see it as their right to do so. This is what drove the excessive demand for mortgages, and the tendency for them to be offered to people with ever smaller deposits (or none at all) and at silly multiples of annual income. Time was when you needed colateral to borrow sizeable sums of money. These days, despite the recent belt-tightening, it seems to be given away like water.

And during 25 years of right-to-buy people have been encouraged to see buying a house as their right. Bargain-basement prices and cut-price mortgages subsidised by the taxpayer were all part of the policy and helped to fuel the perception of property has a tradable commodity rather than simply somewhere to live.
 
While not wanting to get political, can I point out that the olympic village deal was well underway if not concluded while the other lot were in power, and that they did nothing to reverse the sell-offs etc. (we'll let the Gold go by with barely a mention).

Blue ones, red ones, yellow (closet blue ones) they're all as incompetent as each other, it's the short term decisions based on greed that seem to unite them.

It's about time we were governed by someone who cared about the country rather than just themselves.
 
oldmedic999 has, perhaps unintentionally, touched on the other elephant in the room: the fact that people who can't afford to buy houses nevertheless see it as their right to do so. This is what drove the excessive demand for mortgages, and the tendency for them to be offered to people with ever smaller deposits (or none at all) and at silly multiples of annual income. Time was when you needed colateral to borrow sizeable sums of money. These days, despite the recent belt-tightening, it seems to be given away like water.

I don't know if this is so much the case anymore. I think the people who own houses believe that everyone else wants to own them, because to not do so, would question the market and hence their own house value.

I became self employed at just the wrong time, which coupled with a bad year or two mean we rent (admittedly a very nice house) and at the moment (and for the past few years) I'n quite happy with the situation.

There are some reasons to not like it, mainly as we are at the mercy of a landlord wanting to move back in which means we had to move twice, and not being free to decorate. Luckily the chap who owns this house is not looking to move back anytime soon, and is relaxed about decorating etc. The house has been on TV in the past - bonus marks for anyone who can guess what programme!

Perhaps i'm in the minority as I believe values are going to fall further. Only time will tell.
 
It's just yet more asset stripping, we're running out of things to flog off though...

The proposal is in effect to swap small areas in city centres with larger areas away from city centres. The value of the old (smaller) area will be the same as the new (larger) area. So no asset stripping as such.

The question is not financial as such, it is ideological, hence the reference to 'ghettos'.

What would you say if the Council announced a plan to sell-off large hosing estates outside towns in order to build smaller housing projects in city centres? Again, straight swap so no cost and no asset stripping.

For the record I do not support social segregation (I must say this is my view on balance - there are some good arguments for both sides), it is just that I don't think this is in fact 'asset stripping'.
 
the fact that people who can't afford to buy houses nevertheless see it as their right to do so.

This.

Right wing capitalist ideals sell the dream that we can all be millionaires, and they do this by promoting debt and credit and the general under-educated populace lap it up. :confused:

Car manufacturers are at the forefront of this 'dream', I would class them more as finance companies now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The proposal is in effect to swap small areas in city centres with larger areas away from city centres. The value of the old (smaller) area will be the same as the new (larger) area. So no asset stripping as such.

They're flogging off the valuable ones, to sponsor houses in places nobody wants to live, so that they will never get built.

So poor people will have to travel further to work and use more of their wages to do so, just so the rich can get even richer, nice one Dave.
 
I still don't get the policy. There may be a few councils with property in central London, but I would think that as soon as you get into the regions there's nothing in it.
 
People *have* to buy houses in this country as renting is so much more expensive.

Perhaps, but this is why we need a properly regulated private rental sector, rather than the free-for-all we seem to have now, where people can still get away with operating as slum landlords, or take local authorities for a ride under the pretext of fulfilling a pressing need.

And why are rents so high? Could have anything to do with buy-to-let landlords being up to their necks in mortgage debt themselves?
 
They're flogging off the valuable ones, to sponsor houses in places nobody wants to live, so that they will never get built.

So poor people will have to travel further to work and use more of their wages to do so, just so the rich can get even richer, nice one Dave.


Why would the poor travel from the houses that were never built? :confused:
 
Perhaps, but this is why we need a properly regulated private rental sector

Perhaps if we got local authorities to build and manage rented properties and let them to people at a realistic rent?
 
I still don't get the policy. There may be a few councils with property in central London, but I would think that as soon as you get into the regions there's nothing in it.

There's actually lots in it even around Doncaster, and Sheffield. there are properties worth £200K sell just one of those and it funds a block of 8 - 10 town houses or 4 x pair of Semis, the numbers are absolutely staggering.
 
I still don't get the policy. There may be a few councils with property in central London, but I would think that as soon as you get into the regions there's nothing in it.

Correct - 99.5% of the impact of this policy would be felt in London since it is here that almost all social housing of very high actual or land value is to be found.
 
Correct - 99.5% of the impact of this policy would be felt in London since it is here that almost all social housing of very high actual or land value is to be found.

That's not correct I'm afraid are you aware there are actually 7+ bedroomed council houses :eek:
 
Perhaps if we got local authorities to build and manage rented properties and let them to people at a realistic rent?

What's a realistic rent?

I can name some job centres in Cornwall which were built for the gubberment. Because there was no market for them the rental value is two tenths of **** all. Gubberment answer is to rentalise the build cost + a profit for the developer. Rent far above market, but fair.

(We'll leave aside the landlords who keep trying to increase the already inflated rents).

I'm slightly wary of any uk government project.
 
Why would the poor travel from the houses that were never built? :confused:

They won't bulid the houses because they'll be no demand, instead the poor will be booted out of their central housing and have to rent further out (inside the M25)

London is already at capacity, you can't build on the green belt, much of the home counties is already fully developled. So, the replacement houses for the people socially cleansed will have to be way out, perhaps well into Kent or up into Cambridgeshire...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom