High time for more council houses

Afriend_2

carolt wrote: »

But what about all the newbuilds that were too low in standards to be suitable for council accomodation (too small, too shoddy)?

What is going to happen to them?

The boudoir needs to be large enough for a four poster.
Else what do you tie them too?

chucky

carolt wrote: »

But what about all the newbuilds that were too low in standards to be suitable for council accomodation (too small, too shoddy)?

What is going to happen to them?

student accommodation or youth hostels?

fc123

carefullycautious wrote: »

Talking to friends whos children brought newbuild flats this has happened with all the empty flats which did not sell. There are a lot of disgruntled home owners out there already who are in a minority within what should have been all private.

Lots of views here but one of the problems is the that awful word ''Ghettos'' (I hate it, like I hate the word scum) is the thing the authorities are trying to prvevent. By mixing people up, they hope to avoid the old way of ''Like attracts like'' type bahviour.

I lived on ''Nil By Mouth Land'' for 3 years but grew up a couple of miles away in big house in leafy St....quintessentially middle class...big but achingly shabby and freezing as no heating.

I ended up in a place where ''They'' live because I fell pregnant accidently @ 23 and we weren't earning much at all. It was all that was on offer and so, we accepted that it would be fine for the time being

When I read things like 'Urban Deprivation'' and ''Hopeless'' etc etc I remember my neighbours...mostly like us.

The difference now is that we would have been able to get an AST in a nicer place and had our low wages topped up with HB and tax credits.

A better system? I don't know as I can only comment on our own experiences. The rent was far less than private (similar to the rent we paid on a bedsit prior) which gave us an opportunity to save up and move on. Likewise, it was a similar story for many of my neighbours.

It seems to me that social housing needs nowadays have almost been privatised, encouraged by the boom in BTL.

My friend, who has her rent topped up by the tax credit/HB system in place won't be able to save because, as their salaries improve, any increase in wage just goes towards the private rent...as their tax credit would reduce. Bit of a stalemate.


I live in an expensive street.....eye wateringly so yet I have neighbours who I could parallel with my old tower block ones.
The busy body, the house proud, the chaotic one (yes, a million pound house along the road has rubbish piled high, old cars in the front is falling down around the eccentric owners ears), neighbourly squatters (4 doors down occupying 2 houses the owner is trying to get PP for flats), the one with really noisy kids, the 'lets party really loudly'' every Saturday' couple and so on.

It is the small minority who affect estates....the architecture didn't help but that is why I posted up the Barbican pics.

Also, the notion that these estates have no sense of community is also, not really true, as they do. People get together and try and sort stuff out. We did...but gave up on some things.

This is ex LA. in central London. £400k.

Those that got given these years back cleaned up under RTB. OH's aunts and uncles all own a nice house by the sea (all now retired) due to RTB. They would never have got into private ownership without it as they never earnt enough. They bought, waited, then sold and moved.
Snag is, their kids don't have the same advantage so have been helped onto 'The Ladder'' by bank of M +D, which was assisted by RTB.:rolleyes:


The main reason they are all being knoecked down is the concrete construction, I believe.

I never actually found out what Pharoah ants were either. We had poison taped up to all our walls and didn't get them....the cockroaches lived under the cooker and got squirted with bleach one per week.

squinty

michaels wrote: »

I think we have a disagreement over terminolgy. Council housing may 'cover its cost' but in most places the council could make more money from its housing stock by selling it and investing the proceeds or by charging a market rent - thus the rents are subsidised in that they are below the market rent. These below market rents are then available to the council house tenant (once they have a tenancy) for ever, whatever their income. Thus those who would no longer qualify for a council house but already have one will be benefiting from low rent whatever their current income whilst those earning a pitance but stuck forever on the waiting list because they have chosen not to have kids without a partner pay market rents. Fair?

No I don’t think it is fair.

The current system is unfair. It allows private landlords to charge an amount of money that is sufficient to cover their mortgage, and to make a profit and after a period of time to acquire an asset that has increased in value. This may be paid for by the tax payer through HB (or LHA).

This inflated cost is therefore seen as the market rent.

Local authorities have different aims, they do not need to make a profit, and in many cases they may be happy in providing social benefits to the community by providing good quality housing. Because their aims are not linked to profit this does not mean that rents are subsidised. Perhaps this should be viewed as the market rent. But more likely we should judge housing not on a profit and loss account, but use a balanced scorecard approach where social values are worth at least as much as pound notes.

As a tax payer where would you prefer your money to go – a higher amount to the private landlord who is making a profit, or a lower amount to a landlord with wider social aims? To me it’s a no-brainer.

The last few months have shown in many ways, that the market system you seem so fond of is broken. A major cause of this is that housing is seen as a commodity like any other. People taking on debts (in many cases willingly) to purchase housing that could have, and maybe should have, been provided by councils.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, I don’t agree with your assessment of council tenants either. In years gone by there was no stigma to being a council tenant, it was seen as a valid choice to many. What happened from 1979 was a fundamental change in society, people were encouraged to become ‘stakeholders’ – buying shares in flotation’s (at below market value) and an option to buy your home (at below market value). The better houses were sold, and many people bought into this vision, we gave things away too cheaply to try to amke a political ideology work.

So what is council housing now? The poorest quality homes that people did not want to buy, and the worse off families who could not afford to buy. This residualisation of council housing and the stigma attached to being a council tenant is frightening. This is linked to your final point – if we had more good quality council housing it would not be a case or housing for either one or the other, but council housing as a choice

Shakethedisease

When I was young, my best pal's dad was the senior registrar at the local registration office, another was the manager at the local supermarket ( co-op ).. my dad worked in the local steel works and when it closed down, a carpet factory. We all lived in council houses.

There was a good mix on our street/neighbourhood and certainly no stigma attached to it. I find it weird there is such distaste towards it now.

SingleSue

blckbrd wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if we got the exemplary home-owners/private tenants to do exchanges with all the 'scummy' council tenants.
Would the former be reduced to the behaviour of the latter and vice-versa? Or would everyone sprout a tambourine and live happily ever after? Or would all just become bitter and twisted at what they had had and lost or had never had but should have?

Having been a private renter and former houseowner, then I feel qualified to answer that.

You still carry on being the same person you have always been. I'm distinctly middle class but living in a housing association house, my ideals and standards are the same as they have always been even if my income isn't.

Blimey, even the posh ones at the school were amazed to find out I was 'council/benefit scum' because I 'never behaved like one'.

I love not being a stereotype!

abaxas

SingleSue wrote: »

Having been a private renter and former houseowner, then I feel qualified to answer that.

You still carry on being the same person you have always been. I'm distinctly middle class but living in a housing association house, my ideals and standards are the same as they have always been even if my income isn't.

Blimey, even the posh ones at the school were amazed to find out I was 'council/benefit scum' because I 'never behaved like one'.

I love not being a stereotype!

Can I have a tenna deal + 10 cowies?

Seriously, I have to agree with you. It's the person not where they live that matters.

SingleSue

Not a scoobie what the first bit was about (yes, I know, some sort of slang) but agree most strongly with the second bit.

abaxas

SingleSue wrote: »

Not a scoobie what the first bit was about (yes, I know, some sort of slang) but agree most strongly with the second bit.

Tenna deal = small amount of marihuana
Cowie = ecstasy pills (or probably not now)

Pssst

Does anyone have knowledge of other Euro countries with regard to social housing?

What arrangements,if any,do they have there?