Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009
Housing CREATED An Unequal Society
Charted Institute of Housing: Housing Creating An Unequal Society
Bit late with this one CHI. About 9 years.
Clearly the only way to solve the housing problem [that Thatcher created] in the UK, is to
build more social housing NOW.
Posted by doomwatch @ 10:30 AM (617 views) Add Comment
7 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. a saver said...
Yes, build more social housing but this time don't sell it off for next to nothing.
Cannot believe the discounts council tenants got under right to buy, there's no logic to it.
2. uncle tom said...
You guys are probably too young to remember the pre 'right to buy' days, when people had to go begging to their town halls to get even the most basic maintenance done, woodchip paper covered the cracks in ceilings and walls, and tenants were not even allowed to choose or change the colour of their front doors.
It epitomised the failings of socialism, and the 'right to buy' scheme was a breath of fresh air and deservedly popular.
The champagne socialists have denounced the policy ever since - but few of them have ever had to live in a council house..
Looking forward, the key is not to maintain house prices at a level that values the land at several times the cost of construction, and then build a some conspicuous 'social housing' for the poor - but to liberate enough land for residential development so as to flood the market.
Over 90% of new households could afford to buy, if they were paying construction cost alone. The existing stock of social housing would then be sufficient for the remaining 10%.
3. mander said...
What about the wealth? How is the housing minister to be convinced to take action that affects the inflated wealth? Nevermind the young families imposibility to buy a house anymore. It is a supply and demand problem not over lending and house price manipulation. Like American and British lost their imagination with other ways to make money but to invest in property and trade derivatives.
4. On The Edge said...
@ uncle tom: Over 90% of new households could afford to buy, if they were paying construction cost alone.
So are you saying that it's land prices that are over inflated?
@mader: It is a supply and demand problem not over lending and house price manipulation.
Could it be that the problem is not supply and demand of housing issue, but the monopoly of land?
Land is the root of or issue on housing affordability, until we fess up to ourselves on this we will continue to cause this ongoing affordability issue and the cycle of boom-bust scams that a sting of governments have been complicit in.
5. gone-to-colombia said...
I remember well the pre right to buy days, that was when the country possessed a stock of low rent properties that housed a mix of tenants, professional, skilled, unskilled and a few unemployed. The Thatcher policy of selling these council and new town commission properties was a cynical attempt to buy votes.
I opposed it then and still do for two reasons. Firstly, this kind of social housing provided a stock of homes for the many who for what ever reason should not own their home.
Secondly, the properties were sold at ridiculously low prices, essentially a derogation of a duty to maximize the value of a publicly held asset.
The last ten years have shown us many instances of individuals who should never have been given a mortgage, never should have owned a home, and others where through property hype were persuaded into home ownership.
There is a real need for a stock of good quality social housing.
6. landofconfusion said...
"There is a real need for a stock of good quality social housing."
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree with this. The buy, sell and rent back mentality which has sprouted from the "right-to-buy" (at a discount) scheme has hardly been a good thing for ether the tenants or the public purse. Or house prices for that matter.
7. doggett said...
gone-to-colombia refers to the days "when the country possessed a stock of low rent properties that housed a mix of tenants, professional, skilled, unskilled and a few unemployed. The Thatcher policy of selling these council and new town commission properties was a cynical attempt to buy votes."
Exactly.
uncle tom, on the other hand, suggests that the pre 'right to buy' days were a time "when people had to go begging to their town halls to get even the most basic maintenance done, woodchip paper covered the cracks in ceilings and walls, and tenants were not even allowed to choose or change the colour of their front doors."
I was born and raised on a council estate, and, in my experience at least, those remarks are simply not true (except for the bit about the colour of front doors). Back then councils had their own building and maintenance departments, staffed by tradesmen, and maintenance was likely to be regularly and competently carried out, not subbed out to whichever unskilled local cowboy put in the cheapest price.
To suggest that these alleged failings - even if true - "epitomised the failings of socialism" is somewhat strange, since the national government was controlled in equal measure by both Labour and Conservatives, and, where I lived, the local council predominantly by the Tories.
I'd agree that forcing local authorities to flog off their assets at up to a third of their market value was "popular". Whether "deservedly" so rather depends on your political outlook.