Right to buy: Housing Associations

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

the explanation depends upon what assumptions one chooses to make


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

Lets assume government can borrow at 1% while a BTL landlord borrows at 4% or has a yield of 5% is that a good starting point.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

the explanation depends upon what assumptions one chooses to make


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

Make the argument...

No one ever does. They just say it's wrong and it wouldn't work without ever putting forward reasoning's. About the only reasons we get are that some of the builds last time around were rubbish.

The rest of the argument seems to be based on ones own interests in the value of housing.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Make the argument...

No one ever does. They just say it's wrong and it wouldn't work without ever putting forward reasoning's. About the only reasons we get are that some of the builds last time around were rubbish.

The rest of the argument seems to be based on ones own interests in the value of housing.

I haven't made those arguments as I argue that
-the true cost of anything is measured by alternative uses for the money /asset
-the adverse social costs on the people (tenants) concerned
-the loss to society is encouraging dependency
-the cost to society in encouraging people not to seek work where it is available
-the absurdity of our current HB system
etc


however, just as an academic argument lets just compare the costs of councils building housing instead of paying HB broadly assuming the practices of the last 10 years apply


so lets say the council builds have 100 very nice 3/4 be properties that area all to be occupied by unemployed families currently in private property receiving HB.
lets further assume that the HB just covers the building costs (amortised over 20 years) and the on going maintenance costs.


so one could argue that once the build costs get paid off the council will be a net cash flow gainer and also that if HB costs go up then again the council will be a net cash flow gainers


however, as the tenants will stay for life and their children will move out the properties will no longer be replacing HB for 100 families but single or couples and so the council will increasing be paying HB for the new claimants


so after a number of years the council will be back paying full HB for 100 families and paying for their own (now under occupied) housing stock.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I haven't made those arguments as I argue that
-the true cost of anything is measured by alternative uses for the money /asset
-the adverse social costs on the people (tenants) concerned
-the loss to society is encouraging dependency
-the cost to society in encouraging people not to seek work where it is available
-the absurdity of our current HB system
etc


however, just as an academic argument lets just compare the costs of councils building housing instead of paying HB broadly assuming the practices of the last 10 years apply


so lets say the council builds have 100 very nice 3/4 be properties that area all to be occupied by unemployed families currently in private property receiving HB.
lets further assume that the HB just covers the building costs (amortised over 20 years) and the on going maintenance costs.


so one could argue that once the build costs get paid off the council will be a net cash flow gainer and also that if HB costs go up then again the council will be a net cash flow gainers


however, as the tenants will stay for life and their children will move out the properties will no longer be replacing HB for 100 families but single or couples and so the council will increasing be paying HB for the new claimants


so after a number of years the council will be back paying full HB for 100 families and paying for their own (now under occupied) housing stock.

I've pointed out to you in the past that lifetime tenancies are being phased out for new tenants.

They probably wouldn't have to build all family homes if they build suitable homes for older people in the same area older tenants would probably move into them. My mother lived in social housing for older people and there was no shortage of older tenants willing to move into them.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I've pointed out to you in the past that lifetime tenancies are being phased out for new tenants.

as I said: it depends exactly what assumptions one makes and where one starts the accounts from.
I am basing things on how they are now.


do tell us exactly how the phase out will be managed (you can include a graphic of a crying mum being evicted etc if you wish)

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

as I said: it depends exactly what assumptions one makes and where one starts the accounts from.
I am basing things on how they are now.


do tell us exactly how the phase out will be managed (you can include a graphic of a crying mum being evicted etc if you wish)

New tenants are not being offered lifetime tenancies.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

New tenants are not being offered lifetime tenancies.

what does that mean in practice ?


e.g. if a family lives in a nice 3 bed house with garden for 25 years and then the kids all leave home and dad tragically dies of cancer
then will mum be kicked out?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

what does that mean in practice ?


e.g. if a family lives in a nice 3 bed house with garden for 25 years and then the kids all leave home and dad tragically dies of cancer
then will mum be kicked out?

Don't know they haven't been around long enough but there is no reason she couldn't be offered a smaller property, problem at the moment is the lack of smaller properties.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't know they haven't been around long enough but there is no reason she couldn't be offered a smaller property, problem at the moment is the lack of smaller properties.

we only have a shortage of smaller properties because we have a mad socialist planning system


however, staying on subject, if she refused to move (happy memories, space for the grandchildren, loved her garden, good neighbours etc,
would they kick her out?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I'd say nearly all interventions in the housing market fall into two categories...

1) Interventions intended to treat the symptom of a housing shortage rather than the root cause.

2) Interventions intended to favour one group at the expense of another based on a politically defined meaning of need.

There should be less government intervention in the market. I'd be happy to see the back of council houses, housing associations, help to buy, housing benefit, etc. etc.

The big gain would be if the government would intervene less in the planning process, allow houses to be built, allow people to choose how they live their lives and stop trying to micromanage the minutiae of everyday existence.

Of course this would cause blind panic amongst many because they're only against market intervention they don't like rather than market intervention itself.

I don't want to get into a which sector builds the most houses argument but your premise about the experiment isn't logical - the private sector has historically provided housing - the 'experiment' has been public (and faux public) sector provision of housing. Didn't help that as government were deciding they should become a landlord they decided to make building in the private sector more difficult.