Investment in social housing to treble

ruggedtoast

Some friends just moved out of one of these places where they were renting privately. A lot of the private owners were trying to get out but just couldnt sell, the development has such a bad rep now thanks to the doleys.

I feel sorry for anyone stuck there I'll bet the council just ends up buying them at a knock down rate in the end. Instant council estate funded by private individuals.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I believe it is Margaret Beckitt who is the campaigner for MORE social housing within private housing, or as she calls it, mixed communities, and has hailed it as a success on many occasions.

I don't know if she was the architect of the scheme though, I doubt it.

It was to end the problem of slum estates. I.e. these people living together and bringing that one area down to a slum.

I live on one such development. The pair of semis to my right are Housing Association joint ownership, and the bungalows across the street are tenanted Housing Association. No problems whatsoever with dodgy neighbours.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I live on one such development. The pair of semis to my right are Housing Association joint ownership, and the bungalows across the street are tenanted Housing Association. No problems whatsoever with dodgy neighbours.

Lesser numbers. I have 10 tenanted. 2 are problems, 8 are absolutely fine, which I have already stated.

I'd expect your bungalows are much like the ones around where I used to live. All tenanted by the council, but all respectful elderly.

StevieJ

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I live on one such development. The pair of semis to my right are Housing Association joint ownership, and the bungalows across the street are tenanted Housing Association. No problems whatsoever with dodgy neighbours.

Maybe you are the dodgy neighbour :eek: only joking

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Specifically says, and you have highlighted...."council tennants who are allocated housing on private estates"

It also says
and be capable of paying the full rent

So if you you are capable (and expected) of paying full rent why would you remain a council tenant? You could rent privately yourself.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

It also says
and be capable of paying the full rent

So if you you are capable (and expected) of paying full rent why would you remain a council tenant? You could rent privately yourself.

LOL.

Because council rent is 2 3rds of the price of private rent maybe? Right to buy maybe?

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL.

Because council rent is 2 3rds of the price of private rent maybe? Right to buy maybe?

Not the full rent then, fair enough.

baileysbattlebus

StevieJ wrote: »

It also says
and be capable of paying the full rent

So if you you are capable (and expected) of paying full rent why would you remain a council tenant? You could rent privately yourself.

Apart from the obvious - security of tenure and sorry, I meant full council rent (sorry for not being more obvious)- not private or market rent - not much point in getting a council house and paying the full market rent.

carolt

Sorry if I'm repeating anyone as I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I think it's a fantastic idea - and blooming obvious (what to do when you have thousands of construction workers out of work and millions on council house waiting lists...ummmm) - and will therefore not really happen.

It's nothing more than a sop to people like me. The article states only 110,000 homes will be built compared to the 5 million plus who need them.

Drop in the bloody ocean - if it even achieves what it claims it will. Excuse my French.

The reality is that it will achieve NOTHING because the Tories will get in and re-write it before it gets off the ground.

Liked the bit about locals getting priority - I teach many asylum seekers/refugees who get instantly housed whilst their long-suffering teachers like me would never have a hope of getting anywhere. Not bias - just fact. But again, it will probably never come to pass.

bluey890

lostinrates wrote: »

Investment in social housing to treble
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8123723.stm

An already overburdened taxpayer is set to involuntarily spend more money constructing concrete slums.
Is how I read this article.

I wonder what other bright ideas the government can come up with to spend my money on.