Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Because it was previously slums and much more was destroyed in the war.

That is an argument for rebuilding, not rebuilding only council stock

Why did Hackney and other Zone 1/2 boroughs need 60% social housing?

They correct answer is there did not need 60% social housing they choose 60% social housing, and yet they still had 'homeless' and people in B&Bs etc etc


Clearly some councils built too much, its stupid to say otherwise
And importantly, it hasn't solved the problems that building more council homes is meant to supposedly solve.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

I honestly cant believe some of the things im reading here!

First off there absolutely should be social housing in zones 1 and 2, and everwhere else, because gentrification is social cleansing. Forcing poor people to leave the area they grew up in, where their lives are, is an absolute disgrace. Thats not to say that all social housing tenants in those areas are genuinely locals, and no doubt LA statutory responsibilities should take into account if they are genuinely local (althogh they may well do already, not sure how it works at that level of detail).

The question was not should there be any social housing in zone 1/2 London at all

The question was, why did Zone 2 London massively overbuild social stock compared to other parts of London and the country. Why was 60% appropriate for Hackney/Islington/Tower-Hamlets/Etc ?

Greatape, fine you transfer all social stock to the current tenants, great for them. What happens to to future needs.. You know, people not born yet that will one day need that kind of support? Theyve not just been gifted a house, we have no social housing left... What then? Im lost for words!

Something tells me you work for the council?

Anyway future demand for social housing would crash if you gifted the current stock to the sitting tenants because just like owner families they can pass it onto their kids. The locals are only having 1.7 kids per woman so the natives are shrinking in size too so they is no additional demand from the natives

Heres a nice idea: there will always be poor people in society, everyone needs a home, why don't we build and maintain a sufficient level of housing so those people have one of the absolute must haves to survive.

Yes there will always be a small number of poor people primarily due to dyfunctional lives/families but I would hope that number is not 60% of the population!!!! but closer to 6% so you can keep 6%

Councils used to build housing very cheaply.

So did private builders in the past, they built them cheaper and sold them cheaper. Part of the reason was they used child labor, 15 year old boys, another part was the houses they built were a lot similar and lower regulations. A lot of council homes were build for instance without heating or even proper electrics if you go into some estates even today you can see how it was a later addition as the pipes/wires run outside the walls

Guess what, building a house isnt expensive,

it is today using todays wages and materials rules and regulations this is easy to prove just look at the margins of builders

its the land that is (as soon as it has planning permission)...

Land is cheap outside the SE, the biggest social on builders is the additional costs imposed to private builders who need to gift to the councils half their builds at a price the council can rent it out to poor unemployed people at break even for

oh hang on, someone remind me who gives planning permission... Thats it, councils! In most areas if a council had flexibility and political willpower, they could buy land grant themselves permission and build on it..

The councils dont build anything, their gender equailty offers dont know the first thing about bricks. The councils pay contractors to build. The private companies pay contractors to build. So 'council build' is no more than the council creating a problem and riding to the rescue to pretend to solve it.

. For peanuts compared to commercial house builders.

nonsense, you can buy houses outright off the market in places like stoke on trent for less than you can build new houses even if you had totally free land.

Also where the demand is, like inner London, there is no free land the only option is to knock estates down and rebuild more dense. The locals dont like that and the results are not cheap housing

I know, i know, this is going to offend you capitalists and free marketeers, but to hell with you.

yes the free markets only provide everything you enjoy, apart from the council job you have allowing you 6-8 hours a working day to post on the net how hard life is and how much the private sector has screwed you

People having a home is more important than... Just about everything else actually. Unless youre about to argue providing homes deprives people of food and water?

Councils dont provide anything the tax payer does.
Its not like the council properties were built with unicorns and love it was built from money the government got and where did they get the money from corbyns backside?

There is absolutely zero case for saying social housing should be limited to an arbitrary number.

dont you realize how stupid it is to say...there is not enough period!

How can that statement apply just as much to places that are 6% social as it does to places that are 60% social

Can anyone give me a reason why, if lots of people were willing to pay enough to cover the costs (or even more and provide a surplus of funds) for council housing, why council housing shouldnt be available to literally anyone that wants it? Or is it sinply that this would 'create too many labour voters'

more council homes = less owner homes
you want to make people poorer

... On to that little chestnut: social housing doesnt create labour voters. Social housing if by definition full of poor people, and the torys dont represent the interests of poor people. Hence traditionally, poor people wouldnt be seen dead voting tory, why the hell would they?!

where I am its mostly migrants in social housing

I recall one chap who told me a nice story, he is a tory voter today

Anyway he recalls marching against thatcher chanting 'out thatcher out'

At the time he didnt know a word of english, he didnt know what 'out' was he didnt know who thatcher was but chant they did. Thats the left for you recruit people dont even tell them what its about just up the numbers.

always_sunny

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

First off there absolutely should be social housing in zones 1 and 2, and everwhere else, because gentrification is social cleansing. Forcing poor people to leave the area they grew up in, where their lives are, is an absolute disgrace. Thats not to say that all social housing tenants in those areas are genuinely locals, and no doubt LA statutory responsibilities should take into account if they are genuinely local (althogh they may well do already, not sure how it works at that level of detail).

No, there should be no social housing in those zones. Even 2/3/4 is very debatable.
Gentrification is a natural development of life, it's not forcing poor people to leave the areas but it's forcing people to move where they can afford it. It is not different than non-social housing folks moving where they can afford it.

Actually it acts as a break, forcing areas of town not to develop because of that. Go about some parts of London, prime location and yet it looks like a 3rd world country. Shocking that it's allowed to happen.

economic

yeh take a look at kilburn where i owned before. its in zone 2 with really good transport links and next to some really well to do areas, but kilburn itself is a sh!thole. dirty looking, with dodgy loan shops and kebab shops on the high street. its not exactly a family area. very BTL oriented area and many council estates. i imagine a lot of social housing in the area. lot of the people do not need to be there. it should be forced to be gentrified by removing the council tenants/ poor people and rehouse them further away. turn it into a affluent area like its neighbours.

Rusty_Shackleton

Greatape, im only going to reply to onr of your ridiculous points. Other than working for the university where I was a student, when I was a student, Ive never worked in the public sector. I work in manufacturing. Take your assumptions and... I dont really need to finish that sebtence, you can guess where i was going to tell you to shove them

Always sunny, making it so kids cant afford to stay in the area they grew up in, where ther friends and family are, is wrong. Alright, nobody has right to be housed on the same street or whatever, but forcing people to move hours from where they live so they can move out of mum and dads? Thats wrong. It also doesn't matter how wealthy an area gets, its always going to need a number of workers who might not be able to afford to live there. A balance of housing is needed. The rich creating what would effectively be like gated boroughs is wrong on so many levels, most importantly it erodes social cohesion - isnt fostering a 'them' and 'us' attitude what the left is accused of doing? Funny how it's fine for the right to do if its getting rid of those they consider undesirable.

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

yeh take a look at kilburn where i owned before. its in zone 2 with really good transport links and next to some really well to do areas, but kilburn itself is a sh!thole. dirty looking, with dodgy loan shops and kebab shops on the high street. its not exactly a family area. very BTL oriented area and many council estates. i imagine a lot of social housing in the area. lot of the people do not need to be there. it should be forced to be gentrified by removing the council tenants/ poor people and rehouse them further away. turn it into a affluent area like its neighbours.

Heres a little test to see if youre morally objectionable:

Take your idea and replace 'social housing tenant' with an ethnicity. Do you sound like a nazi, trying to get people into ghettos? If you wouldnt repeat that idea but about an ethnicity while in polite company, you need to reassess what youre proposing.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

That is an argument for rebuilding, not rebuilding only council stock

Why did Hackney and other Zone 1/2 boroughs need 60% social housing?

They correct answer is there did not need 60% social housing they choose 60% social housing, and yet they still had 'homeless' and people in B&Bs etc etc


Clearly some councils built too much, its stupid to say otherwise
And importantly, it hasn't solved the problems that building more council homes is meant to supposedly solve.

No the property needed to be built to house the people who were houses in the slums.

ukcarper

Some people don't seem to realiase that for an economy to function correctly it needs worker at all levels of pay and there needs to be property that they can afford.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Some people don't seem to realiase that for an economy to function correctly it needs worker at all levels of pay and there needs to be property that they can afford.

it does but it doesnt mean you have a lot of poor people living in social housing in zone 1/2. you can rehouse a lot of them further out to cheaper areas and they can commute into work (if they do indeed work).

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Heres a little test to see if youre morally objectionable:

Take your idea and replace 'social housing tenant' with an ethnicity. Do you sound like a nazi, trying to get people into ghettos? If you wouldnt repeat that idea but about an ethnicity while in polite company, you need to reassess what youre proposing.

stop posting garbage.

all i said was centrally located locations, as greatape said has far too much social housing. this needs to be reduced so it can house more workers - that need it. of course itll be the good wage earners who can afford the social housing that would be privatised.

its a win-win because the government gets money from it, there is increased supply of housing in zone 1/2 and the poorer people being rehoused wont be affected much - those working can always commute (they can get extra benefits to cover increased transport costs).