Right to buy: Housing Associations

Jason74

wotsthat wrote: »

If long term stability is important the government could bring in laws to increase security of tenure for private renters.

Building a load of council houses at taxpayer expense and subsidising the occupants in perpetuity to increase security of tenure is like taking the world's biggest sledgehammer to crack the world's smallest nut.

Not really. Around about two thirds of social tenants receive some form of Housing Benefit, meaning that those tenants will be subsidised one way or another. Of course, the lower rent model of Social Housing compared to the private sector means that if rents were raised, the proportion receiving benefits would be even higher, so the portion of residents needing some kind of subsidy is almost certainly higher than the 2/3 figure directly getting Housing Benefit.


So subsidy is required in terms of Housing for people on lower incomes one way or another. In the long run, its far better for the taxpayer for that subsidy to be in the form of lower social rents than it is to be paying ever higher levels of Housing Benefit (and if you don't believe me, just take a look at the Housing Benefit bill over the past 30 years).


Then there's the issue of building. The simple fact is that in the post war period, the private sector has never built anything like the number of homes needed. History shows pretty clearly that the only way to build in the numbers required is to have large scale public funded building. Of course, that doesn't have to all be traditional social housing, and if we're learning from history, we can see that mixed tenure development is probably more desirable.


But the simple fact is that there always have been, and always will be, a significant number of people who cannot afford to access suitable housing through the market. The social housing model (while not perfect) provides demonstrably better outcomes both for the taxpayer and people who need such housing than the current thinking of leaving the market to it and (two quote a Minister from the time policy shifted to the current model) "let(ting) Housing Benefit take the strain". The fact that we're going further towards this model in spite of the evidence is nothing short of ideologically driven social vandalism.

Mistermeaner

The issue with house building is not public vs private it's planning.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

You are too right wing

The state should simply build and gift to each couple a free house that it theirs. Why enslave them as council rent slaves

Get your point. But it's not really a coherent argument.

The elephant in the room when it comes to council housing vs private BTL landlord is housing benefit.

Without housing benefit, how would the private BTL sector fare? I think we all know the answer. It would simply collapse in on itself.

So, over the long term, for so many reasons (stability, cost reductions, economies of scale, ability to manipulate) council owned homes would seem a far better solution to the problem that is faced.

Otherwise, to turn your argument around, rather than giving a home to those who cannot afford one, you are simply giving a home to those who can afford several.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If people fled private rented because security of tenure increased that would indicate it's not as important to the tenants as we hand wringers might believe.

Instead of trying to solve a problem which may not exist and deciding how people should live their lives we could solve the root problem, allow more houses to be built and let the market decide the balance between short term private rented, longer term private rented and OO.

Just picking your "let the market decide" point up, as this was said the other day by Ken Clarke.

There is very little left to the free market when it comes to housing and social provision. A subsidy of £26bn a year, rising with inflation is hardly the "free market". Help to buy is hardly the free market.

Same as when Ken Clarke stated he believes passionately in letting the free markets carve their route. Yet failing to note that this "free market" he was talking of has received billions in QE money and bailouts.

What's "free" about a market so dependant on subsidies from the taxpayer? I really canot get my head around all this free market stuff. It appears we need to pretend there is a free market by simply ignoring all the subsidies.

What's more, this "free market" when it comes to housing, cannot provide a single shred of evidence that it has ever been able to maintain levels of supply and demand. ALL the evidence shows that private building has consistently failed to build enough to meet supply. So why do we assume, after 50 years of such an "experiment" things will suddenly change?

Hell, even with housing benefit AND HTB1 and HTB2, were still not building anywhere near the number required.

Mistermeaner

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The issue with house building is not public vs private it's planning.

What he said^

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Get your point. But it's not really a coherent argument.

The elephant in the room when it comes to council housing vs private BTL landlord is housing benefit.

Without housing benefit, how would the private BTL sector fare? I think we all know the answer. It would simply collapse in on itself.

So, over the long term, for so many reasons (stability, cost reductions, economies of scale, ability to manipulate) council owned homes would seem a far better solution to the problem that is faced.

Otherwise, to turn your argument around, rather than giving a home to those who cannot afford one, you are simply giving a home to those who can afford several.

Why is it better to pay housing benefit to housing associations so they can use the money to pay their staff and make interest payments on £60bn of debt than to pay the same housing benefit to BTL landlords.

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

The only (fairly big!) problem with your logic here is that it doesn't currently reflect the reality of UK housing. As it stands, we have three main tenures in the UK. Ownership, social renting, and private renting. If one of those three shrinks, it's possible for the other two to grow.


Clearly both ownership and social renting provide people with a level of long term stability and security, while private renting in its current form does not. Therefore, if we're looking at things from the point of view of having as many people as possible suitably and securely housed, it is beneficial for social renting and ownership to increase, while private renting declines.


Sadly, what we have at the moment is the exact opposite. Private renting is growing, driven by the demands of investors rather than people who actually live in the properties while the other two tenures both decline. This is a major problem, and one that needs to be addressed. However, given that this Government has been consistently and spectacularly wrong in pretty much every area of housing policy, the chances of it changing are sadly remote.

Most my private renters, apart from just one to date, have wanted and stayed 1-3 years.

The private rental sector caters largely to those who want something short term. Students young workers new arrivals.

The council stock doesn't do that its not set up to deal with that. Therefore its clear that you cannot and should not try to take private rentals towards zero it would be stupid.

So the real question is, what level of private renting is a good and what level is a bad. My guess is that the good portion is somewhere between 15-25% with 20% most likely.

In that case if you have 20% (or whatever your chosen figure is) renters then the remaining 80% has to be a mix of owners and council tenants. In which case I think owners are better than council renting therefore it makes social sense to sell down the council stock.


Also. The councils don't need to be subsidised rent. They can still achieve your goal of long term secure rentals by charging a market rent. A benefit cap would then allow a more efficient allocation to people and places. (Eg pensioners and unemployed living within walking distance to the city of London while others commute 500 miles a week into and out of central London

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

Not really. Around about two thirds of social tenants receive some form of Housing Benefit, meaning that those tenants will be subsidised one way or another. Of course, the lower rent model of Social Housing compared to the private sector means that if rents were raised, the proportion receiving benefits would be even higher, so the portion of residents needing some kind of subsidy is almost certainly higher than the 2/3 figure directly getting Housing Benefit.


So subsidy is required in terms of Housing for people on lower incomes one way or another. In the long run, its far better for the taxpayer for that subsidy to be in the form of lower social rents than it is to be paying ever higher levels of Housing Benefit (and if you don't believe me, just take a look at the Housing Benefit bill over the past 30 years).


Then there's the issue of building. The simple fact is that in the post war period, the private sector has never built anything like the number of homes needed. History shows pretty clearly that the only way to build in the numbers required is to have large scale public funded building. Of course, that doesn't have to all be traditional social housing, and if we're learning from history, we can see that mixed tenure development is probably more desirable.


But the simple fact is that there always have been, and always will be, a significant number of people who cannot afford to access suitable housing through the market. The social housing model (while not perfect) provides demonstrably better outcomes both for the taxpayer and people who need such housing than the current thinking of leaving the market to it and (two quote a Minister from the time policy shifted to the current model) "let(ting) Housing Benefit take the strain". The fact that we're going further towards this model in spite of the evidence is nothing short of ideologically driven social vandalism.

Lots of people can not afford food water or cloth's but we don't have state run farms and factories to provide that to them. Instead the individual is subsidised and given money to buy those things.

What's different about homes?

If the social homes were sold off or rented similar to the private at market rents there is a good argument that the allocation of homes would be better and the overall cost for everyone would be lower

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Why is it better to pay housing benefit to housing associations so they can use the money to pay their staff and make interest payments on £60bn of debt than to pay the same housing benefit to BTL landlords.

I don't know. I wasn't making that argument. Looking at that argument though, one clear benefit is that housing associations have standards to meet, more secure tenancies for those who are homed and economies of scale. They also build their own homes, so are not in competition when it comes to buying properties with other buyers - plus obviously increasing the stock levels.

I was suggesting it's likely a better use of money to build council housing and home those people in receipt of housing benefit in these homes.

If anyone can provide an argument as to how this would cost more over the long term I'd be all ears. But no one ever does.

CLAPTON

[QUOTE=Graham_Devon;69226573
I was suggesting it's likely a better use of money to build council housing and home those people in receipt of housing benefit in these homes.

If anyone can provide an argument as to how this would cost more over the long term I'd be all ears. But no one ever does.[/QUOTE]



the explanation depends upon what assumptions one chooses to make


resident selection, eviction policies, rental policy, alternative use of the money etc.