Is ignorance the cause of high house prices?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do you feel inner London councils need 40% social homes? That is about 3x the rUK average

It is stupid we have a million people commuting into zone 1 for work sometimes doing be 100+ miles on trains daily while a million people who do not need to be in inner London are given sacred cow status and can live there no matter what.

I would have thought the higher houses prices and private rents are the higher the need for social housing is. For any city to function well in needs lowpaid workers and they can’t all be single young adults living in shared accommodation.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I would have thought the higher houses prices and private rents are the higher the need for social housing is. For any city to function well in needs lowpaid workers and they can’t all be single young adults living in shared accommodation.

So what was the argument in 1995 when London but especially inner London property prices were extremely cheap. A family friend in 1995 was looking to buy a flat or a nearly new Nisan both the same price. He went for the Nisan and kicks himself for it today. Lower end properties in zone 2 literally cost less than second hand cars

Back then inner east London my area was about 45% social homes
What was the need for 45% social homes in 1995?
And the talk of workers need to be in the city was nonsense.
On my council estate there were lots of single mothers lots of migrants lots of refugees lots of pensioners and lots of people who loved in zone 2 but worked in outer London. So you had the ridiculous state where people were given council homes in hackney zone 2 but worked in Enfield zone 4. The sacred cows were traveling out for work while the workers were traviling in for work. A total mismatch of needs

The people who bought their council properties often sold and bought a property in outer London.

So once more why does inner London need 3x as much social housing as rUK?
The obvious answer is that it doesn't need 3x as many social homes.

triathlon

The only ignorance when it comes to housing is to allow more than 40% to even consider owning there own properties, and I would probably allow far less.

It takes a certain type of driven person to pass the finishing line when it comes to home ownership, most do not have what it takes, just a fact of life

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

So what was the argument in 1995 when London but especially inner London property prices were extremely cheap. A family friend in 1995 was looking to buy a flat or a nearly new Nisan both the same price. He went for the Nisan and kicks himself for it today. Lower end properties in zone 2 literally cost less than second hand cars

Back then inner east London my area was about 45% social homes
What was the need for 45% social homes in 1995?
And the talk of workers need to be in the city was nonsense.
On my council estate there were lots of single mothers lots of migrants lots of refugees lots of pensioners and lots of people who loved in zone 2 but worked in outer London. So you had the ridiculous state where people were given council homes in hackney zone 2 but worked in Enfield zone 4. The sacred cows were traveling out for work while the workers were traviling in for work. A total mismatch of needs

The people who bought their council properties often sold and bought a property in outer London.

So once more why does inner London need 3x as much social housing as rUK?
The obvious answer is that it doesn't need 3x as many social homes.

Average price of flat in lewisham in 1995 was £50k what was a secondhand Nissan

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Average price of flat in lewisham in 1995 was £50k what was a secondhand Nissan

The person I know decided to buy a second hand Nisan for £15,000 and the property he was considering was a 2 bedroom high rise ex council for also £15,000

But stop avoiding the question
Homes in London in the mid 1990s were cheap no question about it many were going for less than build cost. So what was the reason for 45% of inner east London to be social homes?

There is only 1 reason why inner east London was so high in social homes and that is because the council was stupid and crowded out the private sector from around 1940-1990 and arguably even to this day as they demand 50% of all new builds are given to social landlords at below cost.

There was no need for so many social homes. The result was inner east London drew in all of London's poor to fill it's social homes. It concentrated all the poor people to guarantee Diane Abbot would have a job for life.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

The person I know decided to buy a second hand Nisan for £15,000 and the property he was considering was a 2 bedroom high rise ex council for also £15,000

But stop avoiding the question
Homes in London in the mid 1990s were cheap no question about it many were going for less than build cost. So what was the reason for 45% of inner east London to be social homes?

There is only 1 reason why inner east London was so high in social homes and that is because the council was stupid and crowded out the private sector from around 1940-1990 and arguably even to this day as they demand 50% of all new builds are given to social landlords at below cost.

There was no need for so many social homes. The result was inner east London drew in all of London's poor to fill it's social homes. It concentrated all the poor people to guarantee Diane Abbot would have a job for life.

East London has always been the poor side of London and Council housing was built there to replace slums people were not drawn in.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

East London has always been the poor side of London and Council housing was built there to replace slums people were not drawn in.

The biggest council estate in the country is the kingsmede estate in hackney
It was land taken from hackney marshes to build very dense ghetto flats.
It was a total ghetto

https://youtu.be/fPm2Ia_Y_zk

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

The biggest council estate in the country is the kingsmede estate in hackney
It was land taken from hackney marshes to build very dense ghetto flats.
It was a total ghetto

https://youtu.be/fPm2Ia_Y_zk

What’s that go to do with anything.

GwylimT

We fairly recently sold our two properties, one was a three bed ground floor flat with private entrance, private garden, private garage and onsite gym, pool etc. It was a new build so we paid a premium, we were expecting to just about break even, we managed to achieve £31k more than we paid for it, which really surprised us.

The othe was our house, a 1950's three bed semi, we genuinely thought the estate agent had made a mistake when valuing it. However our tenant who was buying it thought it was a good price. When we bothered to compare we realised it was, but we couldn't believe how expensive the area now is.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

It concentrated all the poor people to guarantee Diane Abbot would have a job for life.

Precisely. It's all about blagging a fat, slothful living off other people.