High time for more council houses

carolt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/oct/16/council-houses-heygate-estate

Very sensible article.

silvercar

The ghastly failure of the 1950s and 1960s monolithic estates have wrecked our thinking about council housing, and convinced us that the only solutions come from the private sector.

Sad to think that what was meant to be the answer to the housing problem less tan half a century ago, is now being demolished.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/oct/16/council-houses-heygate-estate

Very sensible article.

There is a huge requirement for all types of housing.
Only by an increase in supply, will there be a reduction in prices that people are looking for on here.

carolt

Well, this isn't about a reduction in prices - it's about property to rent not buy.

As I said, very sensible, and essential.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Well, this isn't about a reduction in prices - it's about property to rent not buy.

As I said, very sensible, and essential.

I was agreeing with you

What is to happen until there is more council housing?
Is there plans to build sufficient quantitieis of social housing?

p00hsticks

If and when more council houses are built, hopefully we will not see them sold off at ridiculous prices under the 'right to buy' and they will remain as social housing.

SailorSam

Didn't councils stop building houses around that 'right to buy' came in.
It doesn't seem to be very sensible that they pay lets say £100k to build a house, give it to a tenant who decides to buy for perhaps £50k because they get it discounted.
The council housing stock could remain the same but the council could end up paying out millions.

Generali

I don't see why you would want local councils to provide housing as they have coinsistently shown themselves to be very bad at it.

BTL along with some sensible and enforceable regulation regarding, for example, gas safety has provided lots of very high quality rented housing at low prices, below the cost of borrowing the money to build a new place at any sort of 'normal' interest rate would be.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

I don't see why you would want local councils to provide housing as they have coinsistently shown themselves to be very bad at it.

.

Remarkably, I somewhat agree with Generali.

Councils have no business being in the housing business.

We need to be discouraging subsidised housing and all other forms of benefits.

Society can no longer afford to carry the f e c kless. Soup kitchens and dormitories with attahced job centres perhaps. But no more breeding for benefits and housing. That has to end.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

I don't see why you would want local councils to provide housing as they have coinsistently shown themselves to be very bad at it.

.

So consistently bad that 1.6 million council houses were bought by their occupants.


Still it shouln't be councils roles to build houses. To put it in context, 375 council houses were built in 2008.

wageslave

Generali wrote: »

I don't see why you would want local councils to provide housing as they have coinsistently shown themselves to be very bad at it.

BTL along with some sensible and enforceable regulation regarding, for example, gas safety has provided lots of very high quality rented housing at low prices, below the cost of borrowing the money to build a new place at any sort of 'normal' interest rate would be.

Remarkably this is the first time I have disagreed with one of your posts Generali.

High quality rented housing. Get real here.

Most BTLs are poorly maintained and the tenants have little or no security of tenure.

Social housing may not be a perfect solution but, before politicians started interfering, it provided decent secure housing for at least two generations of ordinary people.