So what's the solution?

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

What LA's have any housing now? most are now in the hands of HA's

Can't see LA's being the future of social housing IMHO. I think every government as indicated that now they would rather HA's take the responsibility.

Most LA's still have housing stock. Very few HA's are large scal organisations. A fair few were only set up through the LA selling off the housing stock. I'm not 100% that LA's can do this without the agreement of tenants.

I think that most social housing is still council owned. Though HA's have definitely grown.

To an extent, part of my point is to highlight the failure to invest in housing by LA's, and also to highlight that successive governments have taken the money from right to buy & invested in things other than housing.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I read somewhere that just 22,000 houses of the 100,000 or so built last year were for the private sale market.

The rest must have been local authority or housing associations?

But presumably the ConDem Cuts will be just as bad with social house building as everywhere else.

You're suggesting that 80% of housing in the last 12 months was for social housing? Pull the other one!

When developers get the go ahead for a site, there is normally a section 21 in the planning permission which states a percentage (usually 10-20%) must be for social housing. When these are built, the less desirable corner will be social housing.

I'd be suprised if what you say is true. However if it is, I'd suggest that the last 12 months are an anomoly, and suggest it is because the only people who have had reason to build in the last 12 months is HA's etc, because they can get cheap(ish) deals from developers, and they can grow shared ownership portfolio's.

What are the stats nationwide for the past 20 years?

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

Incidentally, there is clearly no magic bullet - it's a classic negotiation problem; what does each side really want, and what can they forego in order to get there. In this context, I would think negative equity isn't a red line issue, the way that being thrown out or being unable to afford a house is.

incidently, when would you like to go back - is there any point in history that you think that housing was affordable and anyone could buy a property?

it looks like the last 20 years have been the best time for the majority of people.

1961 had 40% who owned their own home
1971 had 50% who owned their own home
1981 had 60% who owned their own home
1991 had 68% who owned their own home
2005 had 71% who owned their own home

when would you like to go back to Nick - which would suit what you'd like to see?

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I think that most social housing is still council owned.

I disagree on that

In our county only one district still has its housing stock (not many houses at that and at risk of following the rest of the county since county amalgamation) HA's have taken over the rest of the county stock that includes the two largest towns etc.

I would say the minority of councils still have their own housing stock. What would be more interesting is what happened to the money when they sold them.

dgl1001

nickmason wrote: »

Naive of me to dream that there might be one, but...

First of all, the problem. It seems that house prices are - by almost any sensible measure - too high. There are loads of vested interests that want them to stay that high, or to drop, but that's to be expected. The challenge is to find a solution that satisfies what both sides are looking to have achieved.

In the meantime, rates are very low. Which is increasing the gulf between haves and have-nots as those "on the ladder" can benefit from very low cost of servicing their debt.

Incidentally, there is clearly no magic bullet - it's a classic negotiation problem; what does each side really want, and what can they forego in order to get there. In this context, I would think negative equity isn't a red line issue, the way that being thrown out or being unable to afford a house is.

Lots of people are twitching about interest rates. The truth seems to be that (assuming factors outside of our control don't force it) the government is hardly likely to allow rates to go to the level that would force prices down - as has been pointed out, there would be a serious risk of riots on the street.

My guess is that the solution is to find a way of reducing house prices without causing large-scale foreclosures (and consequent riots). Much of the framework for this seems in place, with low rates. To move prices down without touching rates would require an increase in supply, and doesn't need to cause a whole load of repossessions. So if the government encourages higher levels of building, prices drop while rates stay lowish. Which incidentally would have some reasonably beneficial economic consequences, as well as addressing the moral hazard problem (of risk takers being disproportionately rewarded)

I'm sure there are loads of problems with that analysis. But are there any better solutions? Or aren't we near a negotiating point?

Build more houses? - Labour tried it with the sustainable communities plan in 2003 but that failed for a number of reasons, not least because the Local Authorities didn't want development. Now the Lib/ Con's have changed the system again with the decision to build resting entirely with the Districts. Guess what, they won't allow anything to be built, because if they do, they will lose their positions as councillors - so expect the next 5 years to deliver very very little in terms of housebuilding.

As for land suitable for development - there's loads all over the place - the only problem is that the planning system won't allow it. As a refernce point, only about 9% of the UK is developed - the rest is open countyside.

But of course, demand for housing will still grow with decreases in household size, increases in life expectancy and imigration and of course the next baby boom, which will gather pace. In answer to the OP's question - what is the soultion? - there isn't one - end of

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

T
For my area moreso than other areas, make holiday homes and second homes less attractive, via tax.

I understand how that raises prices (I used to live in a tourist sort of town).
But the problem you then have you inflate holiday prices, making UK holidays less attractive.
How poor would the Devon local economies (or any other holiday towns) be without tourist income?
You could end up with lower prices but no one able to afford them anyway because of employment.

Really2

dgl1001 wrote: »

B

As for land suitable for development - there's loads all over the place - the only problem is that the planning system won't allow it. As a refernce point, only about 9% of the UK is developed - the rest is open countyside.

It may be but building houses where there are no jobs or infrastucture is pointless.

Also your point ignores farm land. You can't keep having population growth while removing the means of feeding the new additions.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I disagree on that .

Shocker:eek:;)

Really2 wrote: »

In our county only one district still has its housing stock (not many houses at that and at risk of following the rest of the county since county amalgamation) HA's have taken over the rest of the county stock that includes the two largest towns etc.

I would say the minority of councils still have their own housing stock..

I feel it varies regionally. In certain areas, the populace has seen benefits & agreed to it. In others, tenants will steadfastly resist any change (Birmingham for example).

Truth be told, it is probably in between. I still go on training courses, & there is almost always a LA housing officer there. Most areas probably have a hybrid of LA stock & HA stock. Where the LA's sold off the stock, it'll all be HA.

Really2 wrote: »

What would be more interesting is what happened to the money when they sold them.

The big question.:T

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Shocker:eek:;)

If I agree with you, you get the wrong idea,

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Anyone know what a 'vested interest' actually is? I know what the popular usage is but it's something that has been bugging me for a bit.

Good post BTW chucky.

It is linked to the legal concept that a person should not be the judge in their own case.

nemo judex in causa sua potest

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I understand how that raises prices (I used to live in a tourist sort of town).
But the problem you then have you inflate holiday prices, making UK holidays less attractive.
How poor would the Devon local economies (or any other holiday towns) be without tourist income?
You could end up with lower prices but no one able to afford them anyway because of employment.

You are confusing holiday homes with holiday lets.

I didn't talk about holiday lets.