Do you support social housing?

Road_Hog

!!!!!! is 'social' housing? What does the word 'social' have to do with housing?


There is nothing social about property.


If you mean, should the government fund the building of council houses for people that can't afford to buy, then yes, I do believe that we should provide properties for those that aren't in a financial position to buy.


Or if you mean, every time another housing estate is built, that a third of the properties should be sold off on the cheap (funded by the other buyers) to some people, only to be sold off a few years later at massive profit, then the answer is no.


Why should people get properties on the cheap, when the rest of us have to work hard and pay our way to buy a house. I might like to live were my parents have lived for 40 years - their house is probably worth 1.5 million, but I can't afford that and I don't expect someone to build me a house next door and sell it to me for £500K.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Simple enough question.

Do you support (as in the idea) of social housing?

[Edit] I'm referring to the concept of social housing. Of course I believe there may be ways to make current social housing more efficient and affordable.[/Edit]

I do for those disabled who need a house that has certain features that a private landlord can't/won't fit. It shouldn't be a mass housing solution for a client group though (immigrants/single mothers etc).

seven-day-weekend

MrsE wrote: »

I had a thought that if all councils built the same standard 3 bed house & 1 bed bungalows (for OAPs) exactly the same. Think how cheaply they could do it.
Everything could be bought in bulk, huge bulk, standard issue, bought en mass.
I don't think we need anymore flats in this country, I don't think it's very healthy for people to live in flats, people need their own bit of space, not stacked in & racked up.

They would need some one-and-two bedroom flats as well though, for couples and singletons. Otherwise the only people eligible would be pensioners and those with multiple children.

And some people prefer flats. My son does. He doesn't want the hassle of outside maintenance and a garden that he is responsible for. He'd much rather have the communal gardens which are looked after by a gardener.

IveSeenTheLight

woodbine wrote: »

i`d go one further and nationalise all privately owned rented housing,might cost a few bob short term but long term would save billions in LHA

Would it?

You'd create a huge initial capital drain and then be supplying cheap rent that probably wouldn't cover the maintenance and interest lost on the capital investment.

It would be cheaper to build basic, minimal footprint accommodation to provide the safety net of social housing.

BillJones

BigAunty wrote: »

If you only allocate social housing based on need, and you make the tenancies short term, then what you are creating is a transient community of needy people with no stake in the property or their community, hence produce a deprived ghetto with lots of churn of tenants with social or health problems.

The problem is, of course, that if you allocate it long-term, then what you end up wiith is a fixed community of needy people, with social or health problems, who'll still beaver away degrading their environment then demanding that someone else fixes it.

It's a thorny problem.

Kennyboy66

gazter wrote: »

Really? How much do you think the rent subsidy per property is? It might not be as inefficient as you think. Social Housing is *expensive*, a gigantic pit in which you pour huge amounts in and get very little out in return.

1) Councils have not been able to 'subsidise' rents from council tax for 25 years - since the Thatcher rental reforms.

2) Councils don't build any new houses these days, this is done by housing associations.

3) Housing associations provide more social housing than councils. Roughly 2.7 million HA homes and 2 million council houses. These numbers have transposed in the last 10 years, largely as more and more stock is transferred to HA from councils.

4) Housing associations are not for profit, however in 2012/13 they collectively ran a surplus of £1 billion on rental revenues of roughly £13 billion

5) The percentage of people who own their own homes peaked a while ago, and its now less than it was in 1991.

The main government subsidy to social housing is capital spending to build more (although this has been dramatically reduced).

I would ask this, if social housing is so bad, why is there such a large demand for it (both for council & HA properties) ?

There are roughly 1.8 million households on waiting lists for social housing.

CLAPTON

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

1)


I would ask this, if social housing is so bad, why is there such a large demand for it (both for council & HA properties) ?

There are roughly 1.8 million households on waiting lists for social housing.

lets see:

you get a nice property at much below the normal market rent

you get it for life irrespective of any changes in your circumstances

in many situations you actually pay no rent at all

you can pass it on to your children

you can buy it at a 60% discount

there is a shortage of properties in general due to planning controls and government imposed costs

One only wonders why the waiting lists are so low.

antrobus

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

1) ....2) Councils don't build any new houses these days, this is done by housing associations......

Yes they do. They built 2,330 homes in 2012-13. Granted that's a lot less than the 27,130 built by HAs, but it's a lot more than the last government ever managed to do. In fact the current mob have managed to build more council houses in the past 3 years, than Labour managed in 13.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

I do for those disabled who need a house that has certain features that a private landlord can't/won't fit. It shouldn't be a mass housing solution for a client group though (immigrants/single mothers etc).

Its not.

Of people who where born outside the UK are arrived between 2001-2011 the majority live in private rented housing.

25% live as owner occupiers
61% live in private rental
14% live in social housing (either council or housing association)


For people born in the UK, 16% live in social housing.



http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/CT0069/view/default?rows=c_tenhuk11&cols=c_yrarrpuk11

antrobus

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

.....I would ask this, if social housing is so bad, why is there such a large demand for it (both for council & HA properties) ?...

Because the average weekly rent paid by a council tenant is £121, whereas the private rent for a similar property is £212. If the government was selling cheap PS4s there'd be a waiting list for those as well.