Rented Housing

Person_one · 10 October 2016 at 5:30PM

FBaby wrote: »

I agree with this, but there should be a ground on the basis of personal need, ie. the landlord loses his job and needs to sale, or divorce etc...

So how do you allocate the large 5 bed detached next to the top performing school as opposed to the small 2 bedroom in the worse estate?

Well you see, in my world the schools would all be equally good too.

To make it happen, I'd probably have to knock the whole country and start from scratch with my new benevolent dictatorship, but a girl can dream.

Let's face it, the current state of affairs is far worse than what I'm suggesting, we're just used to it like the proverbial frog in boiling water.

Cakeguts · 10 October 2016 at 7:19PM

Person_one wrote: »

Well you see, in my world the schools would all be equally good too.

To make it happen, I'd probably have to knock the whole country and start from scratch with my new benevolent dictatorship, but a girl can dream.

Let's face it, the current state of affairs is far worse than what I'm suggesting, we're just used to it like the proverbial frog in boiling water.

Could we also reinstate the old levels of education so that people don't have to pay for the standard of education that used to be free at school. In the interests of saving money more people need to make a fuss about the fact that many students have to now study for a masters degree in order to get to the same level of education that used to be a bachelors. This is an extra year of debt for education that used to be free at school.

Cakeguts · 10 October 2016 at 7:26PM

Jackieboy wrote: »

Three year leases would give renters more security and continuity but it would need to be easier for LLs to evict for nonpayers and those abusing the property. A degree of rent control wouldn't go amiss either.

Can I suggest that you research what happened in the past when rent controls were introduced?

Who is going to decide what the rents for any particular area are going to be? It is a nice idea but past experiences show that it doesn't work in the way that people think it will. What generally happens is that it reduces the number of properties available for rent. The ones that are lost are usually the nice ones.

pinkshoes · 10 October 2016 at 8:44PM

I think anyone renting out a house should do it on a long term basis with tenants given option of 3 or 5 year contracts. A bit like in France...

LLs should be easily able to evict non paying tenants.

Tenants could only get out of contracts with a change of job location or similar, or on the LLs agreement.

Social housing should NOT be sold off. Right to buy was/still is a terrible idea. Social housing should be given as a priority to those families with a parent/parents who work full time on low incomes.

Unemployed needing social housing should be grateful for what they get - this may sound harsh, but this is how it used to be, and at least people used to be grateful! Obviously there are exceptions...

The biggest problem in most areas is that those wanting to buy struggle with saving a deposit due to high rents.

TheGardener · 10 October 2016 at 9:03PM

Right to buy should end. Introductory tenancies should be the norm followed where appropriate by secure tenancies. Low income in work should have priority for social housing and key workers (nurses, teaching assistants, environmental services staff etc) should be supported with social housing. The 'Pay to Stay' plan should have a realistic income bar but TBH - how is any council/housing association ever going to administer the Pay to Stay plan anyway - it would take an army of admin staff to keep tabs on a families earnings and the currently low bar simply creates yet another 'trap' making it uneconomical for low income families to progress. Pay to stay has the potential to drive more ambitious families out and leave 'ghettos' of benefits and unemployed on estates - it risks a return to the sink estates of the 80's. The best sort of communities are the balanced ones - with a mix of demographics - too many of any one demographic doesn't work.

KingS6 · 11 October 2016 at 4:20AM

Regulated tenancies. A few people here and there still have them.

These should be offered wholesale but as an earned privilege not an automatic right when you apply for a property.

This privilege will be earned by the person in question demonstrating in a previous capacity that they are high quality tenants.

This should be counteracted with a ratings scheme for landlords too. Those who don't tow the line are struck off and named and shamed.

MistyZ · 11 October 2016 at 6:10AM

We need a more innovative approach to housing in general. It's not just about quantity but quality. Sympathetic / imaginative refurbishment and conversion of existing buildings would help. The standard of new builds is, as a generalisation, dreadful. It's all about making a quick buck.

Yes, we need to re-instate social housing. Starting with a modern equivalent of prefabs - nice little places with some green space around them and access to services & facilities. A new think on high rise wouldn't go amiss either, high rise flats can be fine, it all depends on context. The housing crisis is a massive social problem. Someone said that unemployed people needing social housing should be grateful for what they can get .... eh? Grateful for nothing, then. Those of us who can afford to buy should be grateful though. It's not all about reaping the reward for hard work, access to housing is far, far more complex than that.

FBaby · 11 October 2016 at 6:14AM

Well you see, in my world the schools would all be equally good too.

Then you would have to take down all the houses and rebuilt them all to look all the same.

Then you are left with no doctors, no magistrate, no entrepreneurs, no head teachers even because after all, why would you bother taking on the stress and demands of these jobs when you'll end up with the same house and your kids going to the same school than if you take on a job with no responsibility.

Person_one · 11 October 2016 at 8:15AM

FBaby wrote: »

Then you would have to take down all the houses and rebuilt them all to look all the same.

Then you are left with no doctors, no magistrate, no entrepreneurs, no head teachers even because after all, why would you bother taking on the stress and demands of these jobs when you'll end up with the same house and your kids going to the same school than if you take on a job with no responsibility.

Don't assume everybody else has the same motivations that you do.

As an example, magistrates are volunteers.

seven-day-weekend · 11 October 2016 at 8:40AM

FBaby wrote: »

Then you would have to take down all the houses and rebuilt them all to look all the same.

Then you are left with no doctors, no magistrate, no entrepreneurs, no head teachers even because after all, why would you bother taking on the stress and demands of these jobs when you'll end up with the same house and your kids going to the same school than if you take on a job with no responsibility.

In P1's ideal world with no home ownership, presumable we would be 'allocated' somewhere to live. So this is another reason why thre would be no incentive to work hard, or 'better yourself', there is nothing to work towards, no aspiration. Why work harder than your neighbour when you will have exactly the same as then anyway?

This is only one reason why Socialism never works.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Rented Housing

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free