Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I mean money. Plenty of Social Landlords out there publishing their accounts each year. I'll let you look a few of your own choosing.

This is the fundamental flaw in your plan, unless im misunderstanding it:

You want the council, aka the *public sector* to compulsarily purchase a chunk of 'defective' (By your assertion) housing stock from social landlords aka the *private sector* using funds from social landlords aka the *private sector*

This doesnt work.

Also where will you get the funds to demolish and rebuild this stock once its owned by the Council?

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Not at all, your not digesting what im saying:

- Gardens and proximity to road: Cant do anything about this I agree, but its not essential

But desirable. It's what families want in the 21st century.

jc808 wrote: »

- Dont understand why a 60s bathroom extension needs to be 'integrated' - its either there or it isnt.

Because they are cold, damp, horrible little add-ons, frequently downstairs and frequently accessed via the kitchen. Again, hardly 21st century.

jc808 wrote: »

You seem to have this ideal that there needs to be a new program of social housing built
But you evade all queries as to how this is to be realistically achieved...

Pie in the sky...

I've answered already, more than once. But, for the record, here is the financial report for West Kent Housing (I picked one local to you) for 2010.... Look at that lovely surplus..... Just waiting for a juicy development.

http://www.westkent.org/WestKentWebsite/files/fa/fa4ef3dc-a269-4d22-83e7-92b15b5992d2.pdf

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

This is the fundamental flaw in your plan, unless im misunderstanding it:

You want the council, aka the *public sector* to compulsarily purchase a chunk of 'defective' (By your assertion) housing stock from social landlords aka the *private sector* using funds from social landlords aka the *private sector*

This doesnt work.

Also where will you get the funds to demolish and rebuild this stock once its owned by the Council?

Council deals with initial planning and comp purchase. Sells to social landlord. Social landlord develops land using existing surplus. Rents received from new development go on balance sheet. Simples.

jc808

Well fair enough, youve demonstrated that Social Housing/ HAs (Not sure if they are public or private sector... theyre 'not for profit' but...) have surplus, but even if they (The Social Landlords/ HAs) could be ordered by the Government/ Councils to pump that surplus back into whatever endeavout the Govt. demanded would this be enough for as wide a scale 'slum clearance' as you propose?
I really dont think so...

Edit
From your last post you are saying that *in addition* the councils should compulsarily purchase 'defective'/ defective stock from private landlords and bat them into the Social LL/HA stock - where are the Council getting the ££ to do this??)

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Well fair enough, youve demonstrated that Social Housing/ HAs (Not sure if they are public or private sector... theyre 'not for profit' but...) have surplus, but even if they (The Social Landlords/ HAs) could be ordered by the Government/ Councils to pump that surplus back into whatever endeavout the Govt. demanded would this be enough for as wide a scale 'slum clearance' as you propose?
I really dont think so...

Edit
From your last post you are saying that *in addition* the councils should compulsarily purchase defective stock from private landlords and bat them into the Social LL/HA stock - where are the Council getting the ££ to do this??)

Councils have cash reserves..... HUGE cash reserves..... with which to fund such a scheme. It's a short term cost as the money will be recouped when the land/property is sold as well as by saving the cost of patching up all those Victorian houses. Even if the Council decide that your make do and mend idea is the way forward, they would have to either buy (comp purchase) the properties or accept the risk of spending public money on a privately owned resource.

jc808

You seem to have it all worked out, seems far fetched to me but hey...

Anyway laterzzz

Ulfar

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Councils have cash reserves..... HUGE cash reserves..... with which to fund such a scheme. It's a short term cost as the money will be recouped when the land/property is sold as well as by saving the cost of patching up all those Victorian houses. Even if the Council decide that your make do and mend idea is the way forward, they would have to either buy (comp purchase) the properties or accept the risk of spending public money on a privately owned resource.

The councils already have purchased these properties, all of the empties shown in the show had been compulsory purchased and owners forced out.

In a lot of cases these owners did not want to move, this is certainly the case for the estate where I live that has been earmarked. As for the properties on the estate I am talking about they aren't Victorian but fairly modern houses. The program also showed estates of properties that weren't victorian properties.

The pathfinder scheme was being implemented to double the housing density, the profit from the sale of these extra houses locally was going to the developer. The council picked the local estate in question because the houses are large and have big gardens, plus the residents tend to be working class and therefore an easy target.

The knock em down and rebuild approach is not the answer in all cases as the renovation option isn't always the right way to go. What you really have to watch is what else is happening with the vested interests and the money trail.

The program proposed putting the control into individuals hands, this will never happen due to the vested interests at play that have very deep pockets.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Ulfar wrote: »

The councils already have purchased these properties, all of the empties shown in the show had been compulsory purchased and owners forced out.

In a lot of cases these owners did not want to move, this is certainly the case for the estate where I live that has been earmarked. As for the properties on the estate I am talking about they aren't Victorian but fairly modern houses. The program also showed estates of properties that weren't victorian properties.

The pathfinder scheme was being implemented to double the housing density, the profit from the sale of these extra houses locally was going to the developer. The council picked the local estate in question because the houses are large and have big gardens, plus the residents tend to be working class and therefore an easy target.

The knock em down and rebuild approach is not the answer in all cases as the renovation option isn't always the right way to go. What you really have to watch is what else is happening with the vested interests and the money trail.

The program proposed putting the control into individuals hands, this will never happen due to the vested interests at play that have very deep pockets.

Don't get bogged down on your "vested interests", it's a red herring. It matters not if an individual or company gets rich because of an individual development. What matters is that there was no extra cost and the development was as contract. Making money doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Branson offered to run the original lottery on a "not for profit" basis. But his stated running costs were higher than those of profit making Camelot. So, they made a profit, we got a cheaper lottery. Win/win. Not that I've ever bought a ticket, but that's another story.

poppysarah

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You mean "make do and mend". Isn't that what got us here in the first place? You can't just fix a garden onto a property, or take it away from the road, or integrate the 60s bathroom extension into the original fabric of the property. What you are talking about is just expensive patching up, which won't last and wont be cost effective in the longer run.

http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/residential/chimney-pot-park

I think they're not particularly nice but they have changed terraces into something very modern.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=POSTCODE^4017158&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on
Houses on rightmove

seven-day-weekend

What exactly is wrong with Victorian terraced housing? I live in one, our own, we bought it in 1976, it is a lovely house with a long garden.

As another poster has said, stick some double glazing and central heating in it and damp-proof, - lovely, warm and cosy.

And so what if it has a downstairs bathroom and no garden? Most flats have no gardens and no-one grizzles. The downstairs bathroom I see as no problem whatsoever.

Knock two into one if a bigger house is needed,.

You can bring two children up in a two-bedroom place, in fact I know someone who brought three children of different genders up in a two-bed place. (parents had sofa bed in living room).

I would be really pleased to be offered such a place if I were inadequately housed. Why do people turn them down?

Don't understand.