government housing policy

Mr_Mumble

PasturesNew wrote: »

Surely the house the developer built and sold at £200k could be built and rented (without profit) for £120k?

If you start a sentence with "surely" the answer is no!

Operating margins are currently in the single digit for housebuilders (Beazley is 9.82%; Persimmon 9.05%; Bovis 6.70%; Bellway 6.67%).

Prior to the crisis Persimmon, considered a superior business to its peers by most, had an operating margin of a touch over 20%. At the height of the bubble residential property that sold for £200,000 cost £166,666.

We have governments that purchase aircraft carriers without aircraft... do you want to risk such inefficient and incompetent politicians with the task of building houses?

macaque_2

Council houses "for life" will also end for new tenants, with their entitlement assessed at regular intervals.

Good! The ones in genuine need will keep their subsidised homes whilst the others can start paying their way like the rest of us. They will just have to survive on 1 foreign holiday a year.

Despite the cuts, ministers are likely to set a target of building 150,000 affordable homes

That will put a stop to all this chatter from bulls about not enough houses.

Tenants will be charged nearer the going market rate, to release cash for the building programme.

Good! Users of subsidised housing should make a contribution to the building of new homes. After all, they are the ones who benefit.

The previous Labour government was committed to spending £8bn between 2008 and 2011 on new social housing.

So where are all these houses after 12 years of Labour. Labour were committed to lots of things but delivered nothing but trouble and hardship.

Campaigners fear cuts of 50% or more to the social housing budget could spell the end of new social housing in England but the government believes allowing councils to charge up to 80% or 90% of the market rate for rents will make up any shortfall.

By using the money to build houses instead of bankrolling the BTL gravy train, the greater good will be served.

The private rented sector would also be expected to take up more of the burden of housing the poor, although campaigners have questioned whether this will happen.

It won't matter. With so much state subsidy being withdrawn from property, house prices will come down and people on average income will be able to afford to buy again.

At present, council tenants keep their property for life

Why should people enjoy subsidised accomodation for life just because they qualify for such benefits (by virtue of circumstances) at one stage of their life?

The National Housing Federation said it had been told housing was likely to be one of the biggest losers in the Spending Review - with "doomsday" cuts anticipated which will see affordable housebuilding virtually grind to a halt.

Where's the problem? The houses will still be there. It is only high rents and fat subsidies that are under threat. Housing association managers may have to take a pay cut but they can afford to drop the odd £100k on their huge salaries.

It also claimed more than 360,000 jobs would be lost in the construction industry every year if cuts on the scale being proposed were introduced.

Hang on, we have been told that the house industry has stopped building social housing. Under the new scheme the rental money is being diverted to build 150,000 new homes. That means more, not less jobs in the building industry.

"I don't understand how this is going to help increase the number of houses available, because if you can afford to buy you will go and do that already," she said.

It has been explained to you darling! Are you thick?

"I think there are some people out there who would be quite happy to take a five-year tenancy but they're the minority."

And what about private tennants? They have to accept 1 year tennancies.

Blacklight

This is just one side of the coin I suspect.

The balance of the housing needs will be met by private contractors building and renting them back to council tenants.

It's quite a tempting business opportunity to buy a knackered old place, knock it down, put up some flats and rent them to the government.

Gorgeous_George

For years the forums have been full of people wanting council houses and private rentals to share the same security of tenure - they are getting it. They wanted private rents to be closer to council rents - they will be.

Everybody should be rejoicing.

Be careful what you wish for.

GG

StevieJ

From what I have seen of some council estates they are already paying over the going rate, does it mean that they may be reducing some council rents

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

The dumb part of UK housing policy is that builders aren't allowed to build the sort of houses British people want to live in (3 bed semis with a garden) where they want to live (edge of cities, decent train or bus service to the centre).

Let people build and the market will solve most of the rest of the problem.

No - the market will chase the money. BTL meant that developers built property for speculators, so we got a glut of unsaleable inner city flats and none of the 3 bed semis you rightly identify as needed.

Fundamentally we have a shortage of such family homes. Yet the shortage has skyrocketed prices which means fewer of their natural purchasers can afford them. Which means less money buying them that BTL investors.

At least the social housing schemes compelled the construction of affordable houses. Thats going away now. As incidentally will be more of the essential workers who can't afford to live in places like Reading.

Gorgeous_George

I don't see why the new style tenancy agreements shouldn't apply to current tenants.

Get the oldies into the numerous new-build flats and let the younger generation have decent homes to bring their kids up.

GG

Shakethedisease

Get the oldies into the numerous new-build flats

A wee flaw in the plan there !!