Right to buy: Housing Associations

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Private BTL houses in all their glory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot50EhRajdQ

Point being, anyone can pick a video.

Thanks for the post however I don't think it is at all at all comparable.

The video i posted was an estate of ~1,000 flats all of them !!!! and it was representative of pretty much the whole of hackney which was over 50% council homes.

---

The video you posted shows a very weak propaganda piece.

they raid what looks like a overcrowded HMO.
Its nice to say everyone should have their own home owned or rented and I would like that but imagine that HMO is put upto standard and the landlord re-lets to just a couple (or sells to a couple) what are the 8 others to do (10 housed previously, now only 2). Where are they going to go? live in tents in your garden?
HMOs are a not great solution to a lack of housing but the alternative of true sleeping in parks homelessness is a lot worse

The rest of the piece is BS. oh look this ovens never been cleaned, oh look theres mold there. Those are almost in every case tenant related issues whats the landlord to do if tenants want to live like slobs and never open windows? I will be honest I have had fantastic tenants who clean the properties to magnificent standards and also slob tenants. The slobs sometimes used to get damp/mold and always used to keep their kitchens (especially the ovens) in a terrible state. However I have used anti damp/mold paint now in all kitchens and bathrooms and have a dehumidifier in each property and email new tenants links to youtube videos explain what damp and mold is and how they can avoid it and haven't had any damp/mold tenants now for a number of years.


so if you want to show rentals are evil and !!!!. pick a better propaganda video that one was 2/10 at best

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are undermining yourself in the very same posts now!

Be easier all round and more respectable to simply say you take issue with the taxpayer building homes for people who cannot afford a home by other means.

I have no problem with the state building homes and selling them to peopel. If the state is so good at building homes (ie they can build lots at affordable prices) then why not do that and sell them on?

why does the state need to trap 12 million people into its dependency? and you seem to think more council homes are needed so it will be >12 million into its dependency

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are undermining yourself in the very same posts now!

Be easier all round and more respectable to simply say you take issue with the taxpayer building homes for people who cannot afford a home by other means.

I don't see supply ever keeping up with demand whether it's supplied by the private or public sector and I only see us having enough houses if occupancy rates increase or population decreases. Relaxed planning would allow supply to be more reactive to demand.

Happy to see you explain where I've undermined myself - you're just ankle biting by the looks of it.

I have an issue with the taxpayer building ANY homes. Government should regulate the private sector and otherwise keep their noses out. Why have a dog and bark yourself?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

If you look at the breakdown of the data, building rates for each council, you find that there is a huge HUGE variation. Some councils have been quite good and build more than triple the average. Some have been quite poor and they build less than 1/3rd the average

So build supply doesn't have to lag demand as in some places it actually leads demand. For example Telford council is a very good council when it comes to allow house building. It allows more house building than is needed in the view that it will draw in people from surrounding areas/councils. They do this with a view to expand the size of the town. There is some resistance including the local MP who doesn't want the nice town turned into a Birmingham...... MP does seem to realise or care that would take ~400 years if they kept up the build rate....

The private builders build there about 3x the national average in new homes. What even more surprising is that they are able to achieve such high build rates in a market that is one of the cheapest in England




The UK needs millions more homes. My guess is there would be no problem if the builders increased build rates towards 250,000-300,000 a year. ie the market can take it. Of course if that were to happen instead of 10% HPI we might get 5%

I doubt you have much direct experience of council estates I lived in council accomadation in the late 60s and early 70s after spending the 50s and early 60s in sub standard private rental accomadation and the council estates were nice places to live the vast majority of people respecting their properties and other tenants.
Now a private estate near me has a large percentage of BTLs and the once very nice estate is one of the worse places in the area.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't see supply ever keeping up with demand whether it's supplied by the private or public sector and I only see us having enough houses if occupancy rates increase or population decreases. Relaxed planning would allow supply to be more reactive to demand.

Happy to see you explain where I've undermined myself - you're just ankle biting by the looks of it.

I have an issue with the taxpayer building ANY homes. Government should regulate the private sector and otherwise keep their noses out. Why have a dog and bark yourself?

How exactly would you want planning rules relaxed?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

why were houses cheap in the 1970s?
because they was too much demand?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

why were houses cheap in the 1970s?
because they was too much demand?

Were house cheap in 70s I think you will find that in relation to earnings for a large part of the 70s prices were far from cheap.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I doubt you have much direct experience of council estates I lived in council accomadation in the late 60s and early 70s after spending the 50s and early 60s in sub standard private rental accommodation and the council estates were nice places to live the vast majority of people respecting their properties and other tenants.
Now a private estate near me has a large percentage of BTLs and the once very nice estate is one of the worse places in the area.

that is literally a lifetime ago

one thing both sides should accept is that private rentals tend to a group social rentals do not. Those that need or want to rent temporarily. That often includes students and young grads/workers that are new to the area.

So to a large extent it is not one or the other. There needs to be a certain level of private rentals. My guess is that its around 10-25% of the stock depending on area.

Anyway my view is everyone should own their own home unless they want to or need to rent temporarily. Why should the state be master and lord over 12 million peoples lives

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

How exactly would you want planning rules relaxed?

they don't necessarily need to be "relaxed" the qotas just need to be higher.

As I keep saying some councils issue 3 x the average quota, some 1/3rd the average quota.

They should all be forced to issue quotas that meet actual need. That means overall all the councils together need to issue 300,000 quotas a year (actually probably need to issue 400,000 a year as a portion of quotas cant/wont be built

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

that is literally a lifetime ago

one thing both sides should accept is that private rentals tend to a group social rentals do not. Those that need or want to rent temporarily. That often includes students and young grads/workers that are new to the area.

So to a large extent it is not one or the other. There needs to be a certain level of private rentals. My guess is that its around 10-25% of the stock depending on area.

Anyway my view is everyone should own their own home unless they want to or need to rent temporarily. Why should the state be master and lord over 12 million peoples lives

I agree we need a mix of rental property. In an ideal world everybody who wants to own would be able to but we are not in an ideal world.