Right to buy: Housing Associations

CLAPTON

I've never read a newspaper article that was accurate

cells

the merits of the government being a landlord depends on how big a landlord it is silly to say its good or bad without talking about scale

Those in favour should at least state what proportion of homes they think the councils owning is good. 100% 70% 50%?

Personally I think its between 5-10%. I think it would be a good idea to sell off all the ones in inner London until the figure was at 5% and all the ones in otter London until the figure was at 10%

[Deleted User]

Housing Associations are not all rosy that they make themselves out to be. A lot are only interested in the money and drag their heels at refurbishment and repairs, and patronising their tenants on how to run their lives etc.

Even one of Corbyns opening questions in PMQ the other week was from someone who worked for an HA, but it all boiled down to the chap losing his job, not about social housing.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

From your link
"Bouygues Development has sold both phases of the development to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, which will rent the residential units.

The first phase comprises 134 residential units, 52 car parking spaces and 9,700 sq ft of creative and commercial space. The second phase of the scheme currently underway will provide a further 144 apartments and 5,400 sq ft of creative and commercial space across two additional buildings to be let by the Council, the majority of which will be let to people in employment."

Not how I read it but if it's the case the article linked to was wrong but not a surprise.

I don't know if funding 278 vs 144 lottery winners is better or worse. We hear an awful lot about how expensive it is to buy but if the council can source houses so cheaply it begs the question why they don't buy the flats, sell them on (covering their costs, and use the cash to buy another lot. Actually increase supply rather than tying up taxpayer capital.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Not how I read it but if it's the case the article linked to was wrong but not a surprise.

I don't know if funding 278 vs 144 lottery winners is better or worse. We hear an awful lot about how expensive it is to buy but if the council can source houses so cheaply it begs the question why they don't buy the flats, sell them on (covering their costs, and use the cash to buy another lot. Actually increase supply rather than tying up taxpayer capital.

How is buying them, selling them and then buying more flats increasing supply?

It appears you are missing the point by a wide margin here. The council have people they need to provide homes for. They are responsible for the welfare of these people.

You may aswell suggest bus companies should forget about ferrying passengers around and simply buy and sell buses instead.

They need places to provide to these people. Buying and selling flats (to other people_ does not provide that.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How is buying them, selling them and then buying more flats increasing supply?

When they source new units direct from a builder? Think about it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It appears you are missing the point by a wide margin here. The council have people they need to provide homes for. They are responsible for the welfare of these people.

Maybe but it's entirely possible you're unwilling to engage in deeper thought. 'These people' who 'need' a 20% discount on local market rents can, I think, be earning up to £66k - really?

Need and responsibility are defined by politicians. We agree there's a responsibility for society to protect the vulnerable and needy but, in the majority of cases, 'these people' are perfectly able adults who just have an expensive rent bill. The council stepping in to become their landlord is a solution for the lucky few who weren't doing too badly to start with and does almost nothing to address the root cause.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You may aswell suggest bus companies should forget about ferrying passengers around and simply buy and sell buses instead.

If there was a shortage of buses because the council wouldn't allow buses to be built and peoples bus fares were expensive as a result I wouldn't suggest a solution that involved the council buying buses and running a bus service and/ or decide the council should fund money off the fare.

If the council could give the bus maker permission to build buses but, in exchange, they demanded they had to be sold to the council who would rent to the bus company at a discount to market rates that would be seen, rightly, as mental.

However, once the 'houses are different' goggles go on the extraordinary becomes normal.

IronWolf

Come on no one thinks this is actually a good idea do they?