Would you march for more affordable housing?

moggylover

Yes

captainhaggis wrote: »

Completely agree. To flood the market with freely available affordable housing would, in turn, massively reduce the value of existing, private properties that people view as their 'nest eggs' and into which they've invested dearly. Why should those who've made the effort to buy at fair market rates suddenly find their investment diminish in value to help those less willing to do the same?

Simply because "fair market rates" no longer exist and I don't want three cruises a year in my retirement at the cost of those who need a home in the here and now!

My home would still be my nest egg! The old version was that you down-sized when you no longer needed to house your young ones and you lived more comfortably (although not necessarily with conspicuous consumption) on the equity!

moggylover

Yes

captainhaggis wrote: »

Absolutely not. I don't see owning a house as a person's right. I hate the "you have the right" adverts on television because, in my opinion, you don't.

Maggie, god love her, made her biggest error in judgement in my opinion when she decided to sell off large parts of government housing stock.

It meant that people could profiteer with little effort and that others desperate for housing were left with only the worst homes from those that were left after the sell-off.

Buying a house is something that people should have to work hard for. I know I did. I worked bloody hard, and I went out and bought a private house, albeit an ex council one, at the full and fair market value.

Council houses should be just that - owned by the council and rented to those unable to afford to buy. Giving people the right to buy cheap homes from the council after tax payer money has gone to boost the standards of these properties seems wrong, IMHO. It removed the incentive for some people to work hard, safe up and truly consider how big a step the purchase of a house is.

My nan was offered the opportunity to buy her house after having been in there for 10 years. She was offered it for GBP7k when similar, privately owned (though formerly council) properties in the same street were selling for upwards of GBP45k (this was a few years ago, mind you).

I'm all for affordable housing being made available on a rental basis - everyone has a right to have their own home - but one doesn't have to own the property to consider it theirs.

Why should some people be given for very little what others have to work, save and toil over very hard to secure?

Whilst I quite agree that Council Housing should have remained exactly that there are two points in which you are way off the mark!

Tax payer money did not have to subsidise Council Housing when there was enough of it out there, and the majority of tennants were employed (indeed in most areas it is still not subsidised at all and the "profit" goes to Central Government funds for re-allocation:D). This is a right wing falacy that was made much of by Madaaame T - and it was only after the housing stock had been severely neglected and allowed to fall into serious disrepair during the last Tory rule that it needed cash injection, and most of that was EU regeneration dosh;)

The maximum allowance on the purchase price of a Local Authority House was 50% - and you had to have been paying rent there (or in other LA housing in the area) for a considerable period in order to qualify for this.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/HomeBuyingSchemes/DG_4001398

This was certainly the case when my parents bought their Council House (having been tennants for nearer 30 years:D) and as the link above shows it remains unchanged.

Oh, and one other point, if the "sub-prime" were loaned money at the same rate as their better off compatriots then they would probably not be at all "sub-prime" and whilst the banks would not do anything like as well out of it: the rest of us would probably do better;)

julieq

bigstevex wrote: »

I wouldn't bother protesting at all in this country any more, the government don't listen to the masses!

70% of the population are in owner occupied housing.

Which portion of the remaining masses were you referring to?

Thatcher's vision of a property owning democracy was that where people owned a stake in their accomodation, they were far more likely to maintain it and build an old fashioned community around civic pride.

What happened in the event was that people in social housing used it, overwhelmingly, as a stepping stone to move out of estates that had become condemned to sink status by their more feral occupants, so the estates became worse rather than better.

The solution in more recent times has been to demand an element social or affordable housing as part of any major development project. This is often resisted by existing residents because of the spectre of the denizens of the council estates turning up and blighting their locality, so the planning process is long and drawn out.

So what do you do? Do you slacken the planning procedure, in which case you risk a serious backlash in the affected towns, or do you build new estates of affordable or social housing, which will inevitably attract a stigma? Do you exclude classes of social need in favour of others (key workers?) It's not an easy circle to square for Government, and it's not easy to see any solutions other than those that have been attempted.

In any case, it's good to see the bears agreeing with Hamish that the solution to the supply/demand problem causing excessive HPI is to build more affordable homes. If they can tell us where they would like them to be built then we'll be making excellent progress. At a guess this will be in someone else's back yard.

I personally think we'll move over the next 10 years or so to a situation where we'll revert to leasehold tenancies (excellent security of tenure) rather than freehold. It's the most rational model, and the historical norm.

If there were a rash of repossessions, the most likely outcome is banks setting up divisions to operate initially repossessed houses for rental income rather than flood the market and risk capital loss. They would inevitably become big players in the private rental market and buy and sell houses. This would shift ownership in the rented sector from essentially amateur landlords to ruthlessly efficient commercial organisations. Beware of what you wish for.

moggylover

Yes

julieq wrote: »

70% of the population are in owner occupied housing.

Which portion of the remaining masses were you referring to?

Thatcher's vision of a property owning democracy was that where people owned a stake in their accomodation, they were far more likely to maintain it and build an old fashioned community around civic pride.

What happened in the event was that people in social housing used it, overwhelmingly, as a stepping stone to move out of estates that had become condemned to sink status by their more feral occupants, so the estates became worse rather than better.

The solution in more recent times has been to demand an element social or affordable housing as part of any major development project. This is often resisted by existing residents because of the spectre of the denizens of the council estates turning up and blighting their locality, so the planning process is long and drawn out.

So what do you do? Do you slacken the planning procedure, in which case you risk a serious backlash in the affected towns, or do you build new estates of affordable or social housing, which will inevitably attract a stigma? Do you exclude classes of social need in favour of others (key workers?) It's not an easy circle to square for Government, and it's not easy to see any solutions other than those that have been attempted.

In any case, it's good to see the bears agreeing with Hamish that the solution to the supply/demand problem causing excessive HPI is to build more affordable homes. If they can tell us where they would like them to be built then we'll be making excellent progress. At a guess this will be in someone else's back yard.

I personally think we'll move over the next 10 years or so to a situation where we'll revert to leasehold tenancies (excellent security of tenure) rather than freehold. It's the most rational model, and the historical norm.

If there were a rash of repossessions, the most likely outcome is banks setting up divisions to operate initially repossessed houses for rental income rather than flood the market and risk capital loss. They would inevitably become big players in the private rental market and buy and sell houses. This would shift ownership in the rented sector from essentially amateur landlords to ruthlessly efficient commercial organisations. Beware of what you wish for.

I believe that if we can stop the "not in my back yard" snobs from keeping the ghetto system in place then we are half way to solving a very large amount of the problems!;)

In my own very rural area, there will be a handful of council houses here and there in villages with very few problem tennants and usually well kept and cared for! The only "problems" come about on the (very few) larger estates, and these are still usually not long-term and are often from rather less than civilised incomers who seem to mellow and start to conform over time.

In my own village the 4 council houses have since been sold, in the neighbouring larger one there are about a dozen left out of 20 still in Council ownership. The scruffiest one of the lot is privately owned and rented out by the owner (and is a disgrace to the rest of the village). In the others there are decent working people (almost all in work although not always so when they first moved in - although some retired now) who keep their homes clean and tidy and pay their way!

If we insist on treating people like animals and speaking of them as animals then they will continue to bite us back - and imo we have only ourselves to blame.

captainhaggis

No

moggylover wrote: »

Actually, since it is one of the most basic needs we all share I can't think of many better ones:o

But we're not talking about people HAVING a house which, you're right, is a basic right in this country. We're talking about people BUYING/OWNING a house, which I don't think is [a right at all].

lostinrates

julieq wrote: »

If they can tell us where they would like them to be built then we'll be making excellent progress. At a guess this will be in someone else's back yard.

.

My parents looked into just this. Their back yard has road access and would be too big for them in returment....but its out side the permitted developement area, or whatever its called.

Interestingly so is one of our neighbours in the next village. He's just had planning go ahead for a property developement. I'm not entirely sure that his role as a memeber of local government wasn't helpful in this.

But you are quite right, while owners of the back yards might well want it (land for development is a good price) the neighbours do not.

captainhaggis

No

moggylover wrote: »

and you had to have been paying rent there (or in other LA housing in the area) for a considerable period in order to qualify for this.

So they haven't really been paying rent at all? They've been living in these homes rent free but in reality have been paying installments toward the purchase price of the property

:mad:

The selling off of council housing stock is/was a bad thing for all but those who were looking for an easy/cheap way of doing what others make a hell of a lot of effort to do.

moggylover

Yes

lostinrates wrote: »

My parents looked into just this. Their back yard has road access and would be too big for them in returment....but its out side the permitted developement area, or whatever its called.

Interestingly so is one of our neighbours in the next village. He's just had planning go ahead for a property developement. I'm not entirely sure that his role as a memeber of local government wasn't helpful in this.

But you are quite right, while owners of the back yards might well want it (land for development is a good price) the neighbours do not.

But LIR - I think Julie was getting at the fact that most would not want this to be "affordable" housing "in their back yard" rather than another "executive home";)

Personally, I abhor the building on gardens that has gone on over the last few years to fuel the pockets of those that get such planning permission! So many of the houses around here that had large gardens have not been ruined by this and have council house pocket hankies left that I despair of what future generations will have left in the way of "outside space".

If you do not want a house that large, or a garden that large, then move on and allow someone else the same priviledge that you had and a chance to raise a family with room for the kids to actually play ball in it!

I believe that Local Authorities that allow this sort of building should be shot in almost all cases:D and local councillors that ensure the system works overly well in their favour would be the first I put in the queue:D

julieq

Couldn't agree more, Moggylover. The problem is really what you do about antisocial behaviour wherever it comes from. But you're fighting years of prejudice, which isn't helped by the behaviour of some of the people in the sink estates. There's an entire philosophical argument to have about how much of that is inherent and how much is conditioned by the environment they're in, and whether improving the mix of the environment would improve attitude and behaviour. Thatcher tried that by introducing owner occupation into the estates, and failed. So the next experiment is extracting people from the estates into owner occupied area.

Which is all fine, except when the experiment is taking place in a field next to your house which used to be green space. Then anyone would get a little uppity and nervous.

It's in a sense the same argument about education, that if you provide an influx of "middle class" children into failing schools, they will pull the standards up via both higher expectations and parents pushing the school to perform better. It's a reasonable intellectual argument and we can all nod our heads to it until it comes to the time we're at the sharp end and choosing a school ourselves. Unless as a society we choose to jump all at the same time, no-one will take the chance willingly.

So you either force the change (and risk a backlash) or you don't change.

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

But LIR - I think Julie was getting at the fact that most would not want this to be "affordable" housing "in their back yard" rather than another "executive home";)

Personally, I abhor the building on gardens that has gone on over the last few years to fuel the pockets of those that get such planning permission! So many of the houses around here that had large gardens have not been ruined by this and have council house pocket hankies left that I despair of what future generations will have left in the way of "outside space".

If you do not want a house that large, or a garden that large, then move on and allow someone else the same priviledge that you had and a chance to raise a family with room for the kids to actually play ball in it!

I believe that Local Authorities that allow this sort of building should be shot in almost all cases:D and local councillors that ensure the system works overly well in their favour would be the first I put in the queue:D

I think it depends on what you are considering ''affordable housing''. A high rise, or prefab block of four wouldn't go down well. nor anything placed without sympathy and consideration,, but, say, one of the more modern green solutions for modernists...or traditionally, something akin to tradition farmers cottage row.....not so heinous surely? a popular use of such space locally has been for holiday cottages: most of which would (and do as winter lets) be perfectly aethetically acceptable ''traditionally'' as low income housing.

I agree outdoor space is important, and over looked. It would remain not an issue in this circumstance.