Confessions of a slum landlord - Investors Chronicle

ILW

ninky wrote: »

if houses cost 6k why don't the council just buy them and create social housing? it would be much cheaper.

They are not bright enough to think of that for themselves. Its always another departments fault.

ILW

carolt wrote: »

Not to me. Dishonesty and ripping off the taxpayer isn't something 'obvious' to everyone.

To you, clearly.

Nothing dishonest, it's just the ridiculous, half baked system that Gordon Brown set up.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

if houses cost 6k why don't the council just buy them and create social housing? it would be much cheaper.

Sounds like a great idea to me, if the Government is to provide housing, buy the houses that are cheaper than building cost and let them at a nominal rent.

The last (Labour) Government's idea was to buy houses like that and knock them down. I have no idea why bulldozing perfectly decent houses should be Government policy but it seems to recur through the history of Labour Governments.

Bizarre. But then Socialists are.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Sounds like a great idea to me, if the Government is to provide housing, buy the houses that are cheaper than building cost and let them at a nominal rent.

The last (Labour) Government's idea was to buy houses like that and knock them down. I have no idea why bulldozing perfectly decent houses should be Government policy but it seems to recur through the history of Labour Governments.

Bizarre. But then Socialists are.

Maybe it was the Tory govt that stopped the state from building/aquiring social housing, in fact they did the opposite and sold it off at massive discounts :eek:

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Sounds like a great idea to me, if the Government is to provide housing, buy the houses that are cheaper than building cost and let them at a nominal rent.

The last (Labour) Government's idea was to buy houses like that and knock them down. I have no idea why bulldozing perfectly decent houses should be Government policy but it seems to recur through the history of Labour Governments.

Bizarre. But then Socialists are.

and a socialist one, possibly?:D

Generali

ninky wrote: »

and a socialist one, possibly?:D

You took 10% of my post, highlighted it in red and wrote 5 words.

FAIL!

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

You took 10% of my post, highlighted it in red and wrote 5 words.

FAIL!

i don't see how including the rest of the post would alter my response. you criticise the policy of the former labour government. fair enough.

that doesn't alter the fact that the idea of the government buying - and therefore owning - houses which it then provides as social housing is a fairly socialist one. even if you think it is a good idea.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe it was the Tory govt that stopped the state from building/aquiring social housing, in fact they did the opposite and sold it off at massive discounts :eek:

Most councils have sold the remaining units to HA's at massive discounts under Labour's watch citing "on going maintainance costs" as the reason

So Neither have done much for social housing.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Most councils have sold the remaining units to HA's at massive discounts under Labour's watch citing "on going maintainance costs" as the reason

So Neither have done much for social housing.

do you have a link for this?

however, selling to HAs is hardly the same as selling to a private buyer. HAs still provide some form of social housing whilst selling to a private buyer only benefits one person / household at a cost to the taxpayer who may well end up having to pay a grossly inflated rent in the form of housing benefit for same property in future.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

do you have a link for this?

however, selling to HA's is hardly the same as selling to a private buyer.

Check your local council, if they will point you to the HA they sold to.

I know because my wife work in LG but look at this.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a737677252

Abstract
Housing stock transfer is arguably one of the more controversial aspects of New Labour's housing policy. It was a policy originally pursued under the Conservative governments from the 1980s into the early 1990s and has gained pace under New Labour since 1997. Across Britain, the Westminster government, along with the devolved Scottish and Welsh administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff, have all demonstrated a commitment of late to the use of stock transfer to reshape and reconfigure social housing provision. This paper considers some of the key aspects of stock transfer, not least the underlying national policy drivers of demunicipalization and use of private finance, and then explores the contrasting fortunes of stock transfer in the two largest local authority social housing authorities in Britain, that is Birmingham and Glasgow. In 2002 Birmingham tenants rejected stock transfer while in Glasgow, following a tenant vote for transfer, the city's entire council housing stock was transferred to a not-for-profit housing agency. The different experiences of the pursuance of stock transfer in these two cities together highlight some of the key questions and issues that are now being asked of this central component of New Labour's approach to social housing.

Most have now done this, I know of only a few council houses now.

Does it matter who they were sold to? they were sold at below market value and the proceeds were not used to provide more housing?