Thursday, Aug 19, 2010
Balanced article on the benefits of low cost or funded housing
Telegraph: What George Osborne and IDS can learn from socialist paradises
How many people know that around half of Hong Kong’s population live in subsidised cheap council housing? Studies have shown that this has been a major factor in Hong Kong’s growth and social mobility. Labour is attracted to Hong Kong from the mainland by jobs and cheap housing, which itself keeps wage rises down in the private sector, boosting profitability.
Posted by andrew @ 11:02 AM (1060 views) Add Comment
11 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. Stevie Dee said...
As much as i think this is a wonderful view, cheap affordable micro housing. Our society and culture is very different than the hong kong chinese residents in my opinion. The idea of living next to drug dealers, drug users or the mentally challenged, makes me believe that such a scheme would not work here. Unless, providing alternative accommodation units / blocks. One for drug users and dealers, with on site medical centre. One for alcoholics. One for the mentally challenged. One for the Chav's. And one for the respectable, law abiding individual who works. In germany, flat living is commonplace with strict laws regarding anti-social behaviour. Unlike the germans, and a like our politicians, we are generally a very dysfunctional, non-conformist group of individuals.
2. mark wadsworth said...
Yup, council housing is a good deal all round, and is a step towards Land Value Tax. What's not to like?
3. uncle tom said...
The problem with two tier housing theory in the UK is that those who currently own property need the next generation to buy it off them.
If you create a raft of new social housing, the younger generation will gladly move in, but then few will move on.
It is practical and sensible for flats to be lets, but people take better care of their homes and their community, if houses are owner occupied.
There needs to be an acceptance that a) housing is over-priced in the UK, and that b) an under-supply of housing benefits the few, and burdens the many.
Balancing the nation's books will create more unemployment, and encouraging home building is a proven way of countering that problem.
However, there is an imperative to get on with it. The unemployment spike is going to come on strong within a year, and there simply isn't time to flaff around with all the planning red tape and consultation processes, that if allowed to run their course will delay any new development plans for years.
The wartime pill boxes that you see dotted around the country were almost all conceived, designed and built, in a matter of just a few weeks.
If the need for new homes is to be effectively used as a counterbalance to the unemployment caused by the cutbacks, there needs to be wartime spirit of urgency to get the job done.
On Winston Churchill's wartime desk, there was a frequently used rubber stamp - it read: 'Action this day' - it should be dusted down and used again..
4. mark wadsworth said...
"people take better care of their homes and their community, if houses are owner occupied"
There is no evidence whatsoever to support that contention - highlighting a small hard core of scum who live in social housing as 'typical tenants' is missing the point - if you gave these people houses to live in, they'd still be the neighbours from Hell. Conversely, what do second home owners or owners of vacant or derelict properties do for "the community"? Absolutely nothing - but nobody would pay rent (or Land Value Tax) for a house and leave it vacant or underoccupied.
5. uncle tom said...
"There is no evidence whatsoever to support that contention"
Oh yes there is..!
You are too young to remember Mark - the transformation of council estates when right to buy came in - everyone started painting their houses, taking better care of their gardens, and worrying that the street verges were not being cut often enough.
Today it's popular to criticise the right to buy scheme, but at the time the scheme itself was incredibly popular. Yes, some of the proceeds should have been used to build more homes, but the transformation that occurred when people were able to own their own front door was dramatic..
6. inbreda said...
UT - I imagine that renters would be opposed to maintenance given the current situation. i.e. why would I decorate my rented property to beefit the landlord? Why would I decorate a council house out of my own pocket while lazy BTL scum are making a fortune doing nothing, and even if they did redecorate they'd claim it back against tax??
I think it would take a major shift in mindset, but if it was made much cheaper to rent, and renting became the social norm, then peoples attitudes to the maintenance of where they live would also change radically
7. rumble said...
I thought it went without saying that people take better care of things they own, pride in the product of their efforts... scratch the rental car, trash the rented flat, ..."it's not my problem".
8. orcusmaximus said...
If we had the situation whereby long term renters could not be evicted without cause, then this would help. If you think that you're going to stay somewhere for a few years, then you'll look after it.
9. Bigbadbob said...
"One for drug users and dealers, with on site medical centre. One for alcoholics. One for the mentally challenged. One for the Chav's. And one for the respectable, law abiding individual who works"
Life would be wonderful if one didn't have to live around other people. I'm glad you're not a neighbour of mine.
10. drewster said...
This is an excellent article, although he doesn't quite seem to get the point. It's not just about home ownership or council housing; it's about land overall. Hong Kong and Singapore are special because they tax land appropriately. I'd go so far as to say that's necessary when you have such high population density. At present our tax and benefits system fails to recognise the role of land.
I'm very disappointed by the comments on the Telegraph's website. Most of them haven't even begun to understand the land issue, instead ranting about immigrants and benefit scroungers.
11. uncle tom said...
Drewster,
Fiddling with the tax system won't get houses built, and every politician knows that anything that can be construed as a wealth tax is politically suicidal..
..I don't suppose this guy actually asked the people living in their high rise ghettos if they thought they were living in a socialist paradise..
..a classic oxymoron, IMO..