House Waiting Lists between 10 and 33 YEARS

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

It would take one in four local authorities more than 10 years to house everyone on their social housing waiting list, research has claimed.

Housing charity Shelter said it would take between 10 and 33 years for 82 local authorities in England to clear their housing waiting lists at their current rate.

Around 1.8 million households are currently on waiting lists for social housing, but last year only 270,00 properties were let out to new tenants.

The group said Barnet in North West London had the longest housing waiting list, as it would take 33 years for it to find accommodation for everyone currently waiting.

It was followed by Redbridge in East London at more than 32 years and Brent at 25 years.

The group blamed the long waiting lists on what it described as the "severe shortage" of affordable homes in England, and it called on all the political parties to make housing a top election priority.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143584/Housing-list-wait-tops-10-years-

Social housing is not rationed by price..... And waiting lists are measured in decades.

A vision of the future for those who wish to implement price controls in private housing through mortgage limits or taxation.

As things stand today, the shortage of housing drives up prices, and that is how we ration them. The alternative method of rationing involves waiting lists. Measured in decades.

OR......

We could just build more houses. Because I absolutely guarantee if you doubled the number of houses in the UK tomorrow, prices would fall, no matter how much credit was made available.

ruggedtoast

Is this the new socially responsible you?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Is this the new socially responsible you?

:rotfl:

Oh, good heavens no.... Just pointing out a few facts that seem to have escaped the price controls crowd.

As I posted in another thread.......

In some parts of the UK, you can buy a 3 bed terrace for 60K. In other parts of the UK a similar 3 bed terrace costs 600K.

Credit is available equally everywhere in the UK.

Therefore the cost differential between areas is driven by supply and demand.

There are not enough houses of the types people want, in the places they want them, and where the employment exists to support them.

In a free market, anything in short supply is rationed by price. The differential between prices in different areas is nothing more than a reflection of the different levels of supply and demand between areas.

There are really only 3 ways to lower prices.....

People can move from expensive areas to cheaper areas, equalising demand across the housing supply. This will reduce prices in the more expensive areas, but raise them in the cheaper areas.

You can introduce artificial price caps on housing, such as via mortgage lending restrictions or tax rises. This seems to be the preferred solution of the keyboard warriors here and on hpc. This will lower house prices, (at least temporarily) but what many don't seem to realise is that because more people can afford them it will result in rationing being imposed through other means. Waiting lists for example, which have now reached 33 years for some housing in the social sector.

Or you can build more houses..... Which would be the most effective solution by far. And yet it's the one thing we never hear the resident house price critics campaigning for.:rolleyes:

ruggedtoast

I see. How interesting.

HammerSmashedFace

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In a free market, anything in short supply is rationed by price.

Indeed, however when you need credit to buy something and the credit that is available has been more than halved in the last 2 years, supply and demand are irrelevant.

the_ash_and_the_oak

tbf when I've rented somewhere new i've hardly ever had to wait 33 years imo

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Indeed, however when you need credit to buy something and the credit that is available has been more than halved in the last 2 years, supply and demand are irrelevant.

Well obviously not..... as despite credit reducing by 50% from peak, prices are now just over 10% down from peak.

How do you explain the price differential between a 60K 3 bed terrace and an almost identical 600K 3 bed terrace? Credit has been available equally everywhere in the UK. And yet these price differentials exist.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well obviously not..... as despite credit reducing by 50% from peak, prices are now just over 10% down from peak.

How do you explain the price differential between a 60K 3 bed terrace and an almost identical 600K 3 bed terrace? Credit has been available equally everywhere in the UK. And yet these price differentials exist.

Presumably because not everyone has access to the same levels of credit. Or choose to spend it on the same things.

Buying an overpriced house isnt everyones raison d'etre.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Presumably because not everyone has access to the same levels of credit. .

No... everyone has access to the same credit as someone else in their circumstances. A person on 20K in Preston can get as much credit as a person on 20K in Finchley.

There is not a credit ban in Lancashire.... But there are lots of 60K houses.

So again, why does a victorian 3 bed terrace up north cost 60K, and an almost identical one in the south east can cost 600K.

the_ash_and_the_oak

people borrow mulitples of salary imo not just 'more'

(just out of interest could you show me an 'almost identical' pair of terraced houses costing 60k and 600k - like definitely comparable as in if you took them in isolation you wouldn't be sure which one you liked best - rather than just two '3 bed terraces')

JonnyBravo

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well obviously not..... as despite credit reducing by 50% from peak, prices are now just over 10% down from peak.

How do you explain the price differential between a 60K 3 bed terrace and an almost identical 600K 3 bed terrace? Credit has been available equally everywhere in the UK. And yet these price differentials exist.

Hmmmm..... I like posts which actually make me think and this one has.
I voted for the expansion of credit in that "what has driven house prices" thread the other day, but this really does make me think perhaps supply and demand plays a larger part.

Sure the wage differential plays a large part in it but not to the extent of the price differences seen surely???

Mind, comparing a 60k and a 600k 3 bed isn't really fair as I think the 600k is likely to be a good one and the 60k one a below average one (even taking area into account in all but a few extreme examples), but the point stands whether we use 600k or 350k.

No purpose to the post..... Just thinking out loud really.....

(I see i cross posted with taato on the last point)