Why the bad news for landlords is just beginning

System

Today I learned 90% of the population is priced out of the market.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't think windofchange is saying that just that as it stands they can't buy anywhere. I don't think HMOs are the answer they are OK for young workers but not older more experienced workers, council housing used to go someway to solving the problem but now they seem to becoming increasingly occupied by non workers.

I think one of the things that is happening that is pricing normal people out is that with the increasing population areas that were not so desirable and therefore more affordable are becoming gentrified.

I personally can't see a solution to the problem but I see it as a problem some people obviously don't .

One of the problems with council homes was that they didn't quite realise that putting the family with 4 kids into a council house meant 20 years down the line the 4 kids were going to grow up and need/want their own council homes

So by default the council housing stock was going to house fewer and fewer people. A house that housed 6 now houses 2 and for some time it will only house 1 person.

Council homes is not a solution to any housing issues. No matter where you go in the country people cry there aren't enough council homes. This is true even in my area of inner east London where about 60% of the stock is still social and the place is built up densely. So are people calling for areas to be 100% council homes or are they calling for subsidy?

The actual solution to London housing problem is to sell off all zone 2 social stock to the private sector by the estate. Let them knock them down and rebuild at twice the density and sell or rent it out to private tenants and owners.

It makes no sense that zone 2 area like hackney tower hamlets Islington etc are home to >40% social stock a stock that is now mostly full of older non working people with low occupancy as the kids vacated while the workers like the nurse need to go rent in outer London and congest the roads and trains to get to inner London.

westernpromise

The fact that not-very-well-paid people can't afford to live where they'd like to / need to is not confined to nurses.

My old college passes the hat round regularly because universities derive kudos from the research they do, and research fellows are older and tend to have things like families. On an academic's salary, or even two of them, they can't afford to buy in places like Oxbridge. So colleges and the university reach out to their alumni and ask us to consider donating so that, inter alia, they have money to improve graduate accommodations so that people with young families can be housed by the college where they are working.

So these are people who have chosen badly-paid work that adds significantly to the value of UK plc because the quality of our universities is one of the reasons we punch above our weight in many spheres. On the positive side they work mainly in pleasant libraries, living and teaching bright undergraduates in fourteenth-century buildings that are still in everyday use for their originally intended purpose, they enjoy free sports facilities and pleasant free meals in a hall of similar vintage accompanied by fine wines from the College cellar.

It's not obvious to me that they lead such a dog's life that there should be some sort of massive intervention by the state on moral grounds to give them a house. When you factor in the non-cash advantages of their situation, they are not badly off compared, say, to people doing the dirty and dangerous jobs that are mostly done by badly paid men.

If one wanted to troll Windofchange, one could point out that prostitutes do a dirty and dangerous but highly necessary (because it's the oldest profession) job, and that their claim to a cheap home must therefore be of equal weight to that of nurses. He doesn't seem to be arguing for cheap rentals for nurses, which is what Oxbridge colleges are trying to achieve, but for cheap houses that they can buy and presumably sell. Why is this not an argument for the state to build brothel estates as well? Who decides whose moral entitlement to a house is pre-eminent? It's not illegal to be a prostitute, so why should their claim be favoured less?

Conrad

300,000 net new migrants per year into the UK, that's 30 million over a century. You can plaster the land in homes, but unless demand is drastically cut back, homes will remain expensive relative to incomes.


No, not blaming migrants, yawn, but am blaming immigration policy.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

One of the problems with council homes was that they didn't quite realise that putting the family with 4 kids into a council house meant 20 years down the line the 4 kids were going to grow up and need/want their own council homes

So by default the council housing stock was going to house fewer and fewer people. A house that housed 6 now houses 2 and for some time it will only house 1 person.

Council homes is not a solution to any housing issues. No matter where you go in the country people cry there aren't enough council homes. This is true even in my area of inner east London where about 60% of the stock is still social and the place is built up densely. So are people calling for areas to be 100% council homes or are they calling for subsidy?

The actual solution to London housing problem is to sell off all zone 2 social stock to the private sector by the estate. Let them knock them down and rebuild at twice the density and sell or rent it out to private tenants and owners.

It makes no sense that zone 2 area like hackney tower hamlets Islington etc are home to >40% social stock a stock that is now mostly full of older non working people with low occupancy as the kids vacated while the workers like the nurse need to go rent in outer London and congest the roads and trains to get to inner London.

You do talk rubbish sometimes I was bought up in a council house as were most of my friends and with the exception of one person non of us now live in council houses.

It's not just the cost that is a factor its security of tenure aswell, that is what social housing provides. If you can come up with a system giving more security to tenants without discouraging landlords that would help. But I don't see it as ideal that a couple both earning £20k receive in excess £5k a year in housing benefit which is the case in parts of London.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't but that doesn't alter the fact that you look selfish and unsympathetic.

how can you sleep at night? if you think i am selfish and unsympathetic then i hope you can live with so many others who are much worse then you think i am!

lifes tough. its also unfair. its just the way it is. nurses not being able to buy in a decent area does not get any sympathies from me!!

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

how can you sleep at night? if you think i am selfish and unsympathetic then i hope you can live with so many others who are much worse then you think i am!

lifes tough. its also unfair. its just the way it is. nurses not being able to buy in a decent area does not get any sympathies from me!!

You keep going on about buying in decent areas, I'm not saying that they should be able to but you keep ignoring that.

Windofchange

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Clearly, nobody said it doesn't, but I don't think the avg paid person has an automatic right to buy in Prime London, which is what the poster full of wind is stating.

Maybe hospital accommodation should be provided to NHS workers in London, HMO style apartments at a reduced rate, but Windy is arguing for an automatic right to buy a scarce item at a reduced rate because he's probably a nurse.....

Oh for the love of god. Where have I said an average worker should be able to buy in prime London? I have specifically said in a number of posts that I don't think someone should. You just read what you want to read. It's like trying to argue with a toddler.

Where have I said that a nurse or whoever should be able to buy at a discounted rate? You may as well just start a new thread consisting purely of yourself and make up a conversation for all the difference it would make. Yeah, I think a nurse should be able to buy a bugatti and live in a Chelsea penthouse. Go start another thread and have the argument with yourself that you are so keen to have.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

You keep going on about buying in decent areas, I'm not saying that they should be able to but you keep ignoring that.

do you agree that if a nurse really wanted to buy and all she could afford was a run down poor and dangerous area, that she should be able to afford mroe then that and its not right that thats all she can afford?

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Oh for the love of god. Where have I said an average worker should be able to buy in prime London? I have specifically said in a number of posts that I don't think someone should. You just read what you want to read. It's like trying to argue with a toddler.

Where have I said that a nurse or whoever should be able to buy at a discounted rate? You may as well just start a new thread consisting purely of yourself and make up a conversation for all the difference it would make. Yeah, I think a nurse should be able to buy a bugatti and live in a Chelsea penthouse. Go start another thread and have the argument with yourself that you are so keen to have.

you come across as a very nasty and bitter person. why?