Should there be a "moral" element the the allocation of social housing?

ILW

From another thread where it has been stated that social housing is allocated purely on a basis of need, I was wondering whether an element of social responsibility could be added to the allocation (and retention) criteria, particularly for the more desireable properties.

I can think of a number of ways this could improve the deal for both tenants and taxpayers, but would it be considered socially acceptable?

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

From another thread where it has been stated that social housing is allocated purely on a basis of need, I was wondering whether an element of social responsibility could be added to the allocation (and retention) criteria, particularly for the more desireable properties.

I can think of a number of ways this could improve the deal for both tenants and taxpayers, but would it be considered socially acceptable?

I believe there was in the 60s and 70s

lemonjelly

There still is, and always has been in the case of social housing.

How that is managed, and what happens when people's circumstances changed is part of what created some of the difficulties social housing faces today.

But the biggest problem is that right to buy took both funds and properties out of the social housing sector, and not one penny of it was reinvested in housing. This created a cash shortage as well as a property shortage.

ILW

lemonjelly wrote: »

There still is, and always has been in the case of social housing.

How that is managed, and what happens when people's circumstances changed is part of what created some of the difficulties social housing faces today.

But the biggest problem is that right to buy took both funds and properties out of the social housing sector, and not one penny of it was reinvested in housing. This created a cash shortage as well as a property shortage.

I what way, if allocation is based purely on "need"?

Generali

The problem is, whose morals do you use? Would you give unmarried couples a flat? Or gays? Or bankers? Or Catholics? Or Socialists?

Generali. Tough on Socialists, tough on the causes of Socialism.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

The problem is, whose morals do you use? Would you give unmarried couples a flat? Or gays? Or Socialists?

Generali. Tough on Socialists, tough on the causes of Socialism.

Maybe moral was the wrong word, socially responsible may be closer to the mark, it is easier to define.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Maybe moral was the wrong word, socially responsible may be closer to the mark, it is easier to define.

maybe give a few examples of people you would give housing to and some example of poeople who you wouldn't

Kennyboy66

ILW wrote: »

Maybe moral was the wrong word, socially responsible may be closer to the mark, it is easier to define.

"Problem families" have always been housed or moved onto "problem estates" by and large.

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe give a few examples of people you would give housing to and some example of poeople who you wouldn't

People whose homes look like a mess (inside and out) should lose tenency rights. I am sure that is how it was originally.

lostinrates

ILW wrote: »

People whose homes look like a mess (inside and out) should lose tenency rights. I am sure that is how it was originally.

suppose these people are reliant on carers to do this and their care fund has been cut?

Suppose they are a single adult working crazy hours to support a family and save for their kids future and simply don't have time or energy to for example cut the grass weekly.

these two scenarios are very different to people lazy and messy for its own sake.

I'm not disagreeing, but seems to me that there is scope for grey area here.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

From another thread where it has been stated that social housing is allocated purely on a basis of need, I was wondering whether an element of social responsibility could be added to the allocation (and retention) criteria, particularly for the more desireable properties.

I can think of a number of ways this could improve the deal for both tenants and taxpayers, but would it be considered socially acceptable?

i think it's a bit artificial to look at this only in the context of the allocation of social housing. in my view you need to look at this at a higher level, because if you consificate social housing from the "socially irresponsible" who are also in receipt of benefits, all you will really be doing is moving people from social housing in to private rentals funded by the state. i.e. should state support be dependent on social responsibility, or is there a moral obligation for the state to provide housing even to the socially irresponsible.

and then, what does socially responsible / irresponsible mean?

any system which requires a subjective judgement to be made is always going to be problematic (although this doesn't mean that a system with no such judgements cannot be even worse).