Right to buy: Housing Associations

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I could use the same childish argument and say you're worried about losing the taxpayer sub on the rented part of your shared ownership house which is why you're all for ever increasing state meddling.

Let's say I'm right and the biggest single factor causing a shortage of housing is government diktat that planning permission be highly restrictive then the solution would be for government to remove those restrictions.

More houses could be built and, you won't like this bit, the people who live in them could do what adults do and pay for them by either buying or paying rent rather than sticking their hand out for a sub.

No more HTB, rotten landlords snubbed in favour of better ones, cheaper houses, more choice, reduced cost maintaining the vulnerable and adults treated like adults.

Oh, my house might fall in value - try not to worry about it - I'm not.

And your argument completely ignores all the current plots with current planning permission that are not built on.

Labour had the stats coming up to the election and a plan to fine though who had not started building within 2 years of being granted permission.

The coalition watered down planning too. We've had 2 years of that and nothing measurable has changed.

The FTSE100 house builders have 200,000 plots with planning permission granted. Yet house building, inclduing all HA building etc is still only 105k plots a year.

If we double that and grant 400,000 plots....do you think building would suddenly double?

Of course it wouldn't. It would cause a glut of properties flooding the market reducing their own asset value.

The need for 2 bed houses in many towns is huge. Builders though (and this statement is in nearly every builders investor update) go and build higher end properties, as thats where the money is.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

As I said non life life tenancies are new so the current polices regarding life time tenancies do not apply.

When someone lives in state housing their landlord, their needs assessor and the entity paying any housing benefit are all the same. You don't see any potential issues here that this conflict of interest might cause?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

When someone lives in state housing their landlord, their needs assessor and the entity paying any housing benefit are all the same. You don't see any potential issues here that this conflict of interest might cause?

List some issues.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And your argument completely ignores all the current plots with current planning permission that are not built on.

Labour had the stats coming up to the election and a plan to fine though who had not started building within 2 years of being granted permission.

The coalition watered down planning too. We've had 2 years of that and nothing measurable has changed.

The FTSE100 house builders have 200,000 plots with planning permission granted. Yet house building, inclduing all HA building etc is still only 105k plots a year.

If we double that and grant 400,000 plots....do you think building would suddenly double?

Of course it wouldn't. It would cause a glut of properties flooding the market reducing their own asset value.

The need for 2 bed houses in many towns is huge. Builders though (and this statement is in nearly every builders investor update) go and build higher end properties, as thats where the money is.

The long winded planning process with it's requirements for bribes and months of bureaucracy means builders need to be able to tie up a large amount of capital for a long time. This clearly favours bigger builders with deeper pockets and the funds to run expensive departments skilled in negotiating the process.

A relaxation of the planning rules would mean builders who don't have the upfront capital could enter the market and fulfil the huge demand you say is there. Relaxed planning = lower costs. More competition = lower margins. Good news for house buyers I'd say.

200,000 plots with planning doesn't sound that many to me to be honest. Relaxed planning rules would probably reduce this because a builder would have a better idea from the outset of the likelihood of success and the length of the process. The safety margin needs to be higher the more uncertain supply becomes - common sense. If you built widgets and one of the components had a supply line which was uncertain and variable delivery times you wouldn't work a just in time system either unless you liked running a widget business that didn't make widgets.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

A relaxation of the planning rules would mean builders who don't have the upfront capital could enter the market and fulfil the huge demand you say is there. Relaxed planning = lower costs. More competition = lower margins. Good news for house buyers I'd say.

Which conflates with you other argument.

That argument being that builders will only build what they can sell. Hence the need, and your backing for Help to Buy. You claim HTB is needed as it gets supply built.

But now you appear to be arguing the complete opposite - that they would build even more than they can sell....because they have planning? (even though every shred of evidence on this subject proves your argument utterly wrong).

Your last paragraph then explains the complexities of the private building system - all in order to argue that this is the best way to build more houses, and argue against the highly successful council house apprach which built the number of homes we needed and more.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

List some issues.

I'm not very likely to vote for a politician who has decided I don't need free money any longer and/ or evicted me. Politicians would therefore spend other people's money to redefine need and to keep grateful people in subsidised housing.

Unless they're mistakes of the present/ past that won't be repeated either.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

When someone lives in state housing their landlord, their needs assessor and the entity paying any housing benefit are all the same. You don't see any potential issues here that this conflict of interest might cause?

I can see benefits as well as issues, the current system of providing housing for people who cannot afford private rents is far from ideal and I have no faith in ability of the private sector to solve it.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not very likely to vote for a politician who has decided I don't need free money any longer and/ or evicted me. Politicians would therefore spend other people's money to redefine need and to keep grateful people in subsidised housing.

Unless they're mistakes of the present/ past that won't be repeated either.

So, basically, you are saying nothing will change.

This already happens. There are examples of those with business, tax credits, landlords etc littered all over this forum stating they wouldn't vote for X as they would raise corporation tax, ruduce benefits etc.

Not long back, we have landlords stating "don't vote labour, they will regulate the market".

Shock horror - people may not vote for a politician who disagrees with their principles?! Who'd have thought? I'm literally stunned!

I fail to see how a system whereby those paying your housing benefit, assessing your needs and being your landlord will change this - that was, afterall, your point.

So what else is on your list?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I can see benefits as well as issues, the current system of providing housing for people who cannot afford private rents is far from ideal and I have no faith in ability of the private sector to solve it.

It never will. You can look back to times of much easier planning in the 70's and even then, private building didn't create enough homes to keep up with demand.

There is not a time in recent history (going back a few decades) where private building in this country has built the number of homes the country needs. I don't know why anyone would think it's going to suddenly change.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which conflates with you other argument.

That argument being that builders will only build what they can sell. Hence the need, and your backing for Help to Buy. You claim HTB is needed as it gets supply built.

I think HTB is better, in the absence of relaxed planning, at getting houses built than not having HTB. Forget HTB though (it's fun to argue about, granted, but think of it being the wood blocking your view of the trees). It's insignificant and not even worth putting in the same sentence when compared to the gain that relaxed planning would bring. Minutiae compared to the bigger win.

I'm withdrawing HTB when I relax planning so don't worry about it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But now you appear to be arguing the complete opposite - that they would build even more than they can sell....because they have planning? (even though every shred of evidence on this subject proves your argument utterly wrong).

Did I say they would build more than they can sell? Stop building strawmen. It's also slightly annoying you say things like every shred of evidence proves me wrong - if it does then present it coherently and put the argument to bed.

Ask yourself this. You've said there's a massive demand for two beds around the country. Given this demand what's stopping Devon & Wotsthat Builders inc, from satisfying this demand and making a fortune?

I'd expect backers to ask, if there were such riches available, current builders had loads of plots with planning, the planning process was relatively simple, why the opportunity had been missed.

I think that's a difficult question to answer because builders might favour bigger houses but they make money from building houses. Tesco's prefer to sell their own label baked beans because they make more money - doesn't mean they refuse to sell the value beans.

Anyway, we're going to build these houses because we think the demand is there. What are the biggest hurdles?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Your last paragraph then explains the complexities of the private building system - all in order to argue that this is the best way to build more houses, and argue against the highly successful council house apprach which built the number of homes we needed and more.

We need to make the private building less complex.

Council house building was a one off. Many of the houses being built were replacements of those destroyed by the Luftwaffe and slum clearances. There's no modern context in which it could, or should, ever happen again.

I'm sure people in the fifties and sixties were grateful but according to this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936

But the post-war dream of urban renewal quickly turned sour.

By the early 1970s, the concrete walkways and "streets in the sky" that had once seemed so pristine and futuristic, were becoming grim havens of decay and lawlessness.

And there was a powerful smell of corruption emanating from some town halls as the cosy relationship between local politicians and their friends in building and architecture was laid bare, along with the shoddy standard of many of the "system-built" homes they had created.

Some flowery journalism but more like my idea of council housing than the rose tinted version held by yourself