Pathfinder Home Regen Cancelled

[SarahBell]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12662502

Residents say a housing programme, set up by Labour nine years ago and then scrapped by the coalition government, has left them trapped in a housing nightmare.

The Pathfinder scheme set out to regenerate parts of the Midlands and the north of England and thousands of properties were demolished but not nearly as many new houses were built.

Now some residents live in the middle of a building site.

I think the main issue being that in 9 years all they have managed to do is board up a lot of properties.

There's major issues in these northern (read labour voting) towns still..., but mostly a lack of housing investment by the right people.

They should now offer these properties for refurb to anyone who wants to do them up. But for anyone wanting to be a private landlord they should cap rents for the area to ensure it stays as affordable as possible.

[ccc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12662502

Residents say a housing programme, set up by Labour nine years ago and then scrapped by the coalition government, has left them trapped in a housing nightmare.

The Pathfinder scheme set out to regenerate parts of the Midlands and the north of England and thousands of properties were demolished but not nearly as many new houses were built.

Now some residents live in the middle of a building site.

I think the main issue being that in 9 years all they have managed to do is board up a lot of properties.

There's major issues in these northern (read labour voting) towns still..., but mostly a lack of housing investment by the right people.

They should now offer these properties for refurb to anyone who wants to do them up. But for anyone wanting to be a private landlord they should cap rents for the area to ensure it stays as affordable as possible.

Yep - give them away/nominal sum to people wanting to live in these homes. Put a clause in the sale that they cannot be sold with x number of years from being completed. The end value of these places will sort itself out. Job done. New area of done up homes with people who actually want to live there for reasonable prices.

Compare this to the ridiculous shared ownership schemes and its easy to see what makes more sense.

[Ulfar]

There will be people cheering this. This scheme and other like it were being used as a land grab.

Where I live an estate that had previously been fully council owned but due to right to buy had resulted in 2/3 of the properties being bought was due to be flattened and redeveloped with higher occupancy density.

This was voted for by the residents. Unfortunately the residents were conned into thinking they were voting for their present homes to be brought up to scratch, in addition to this the really big problem was only council tenants got to vote. If the owner occupiers had voted it would never have passed.

This left nearly 1000 owner occupiers facing compulsory purchase where they wouldn't have got a fair value due to development blight. They would have then been offered a new build at an inflated price, that would have been smaller with very little outside space.

Of course the developer would have made a nice big fat profit.

[tinker]

Pathfinder I believe cost the taxpayer £2b, and was basically a cosy tie-up between developers and politicians, razing areas in order to replace refurbishable housing with more expensive, more desirable properties. A sort of ethnic cleansing. Now thousands of properties remain empty, boarded up.

It tells you everything that in order for this scheme to succeed, it needed government (our) cash.

Another of Prescott's follies. It 'stunk' to high Heaven.

It would be too much to expect an enlightened, micro-refurbish and occupy scheme providing low-cost/low-rent homes for those who need them, with a time clause to stop the quick-buck merchants

[pathfinder]

Pathfinder I believe cost the taxpayer £2b.

I am going to check my bank account later.

[bomberbrown]

Suddenly, being the only one to buy your own council flat in your street wasn't such a good idea after all was it now.

[Nationalist]

Suddenly, being the only one to buy your own council flat in your street wasn't such a good idea after all was it now.

Buying your own council flat has always been a double-edged sword. There may be some capital gain, but then the council decides the building needs some million pound new feature. The council tenants get it paid for but the OO stump up their shared of an inflated cost, laden with kick backs and council waste. Nightmare scenario.

Edit: spelling

Edited March 7, 2011 by Nationalist

[MattW]

They should now offer these properties for refurb to anyone who wants to do them up. But for anyone wanting to be a private landlord they should cap rents for the area to ensure it stays as affordable as possible.

Agree totally.

It just seem like such a pointless waste seeing those houses boarded up when there are housing waiting lists.

And why on Earth couldn't one row of houses be purchased, demolished and built upon, one by one rather than a number of rows of houses left to rot?

[macfarlan]

Pathfinder I believe cost the taxpayer £2b, and was basically a cosy tie-up between developers and politicians, razing areas in order to replace refurbishable housing with more expensive, more desirable properties. A sort of ethnic cleansing. Now thousands of properties remain empty, boarded up.

It tells you everything that in order for this scheme to succeed, it needed government (our) cash.

Another of Prescott's follies. It 'stunk' to high Heaven.

It would be too much to expect an enlightened, micro-refurbish and occupy scheme providing low-cost/low-rent homes for those who need them, with a time clause to stop the quick-buck merchants

Of course, this would cost nothing, and address all of the associated problems these kinds of areas have, i.e. Lack of jobs, lack of pride, lack of respect, lack of health, lack of skills, lack of initiative, lack of incentive, lack of investment into the area, lack of hope, etc wouldn't it?

Really, how would your idea be implemented, much would would it cost, how would all of the above be addressed without massive govt spending or attracting outside investment into an area suffering from a list of problem of the type identified? If it's possible to attract outside investment, whats in it for the investor? If i't not, then without outside investment we all have to pay for it via our taxes.

Are there any working examples in existence of the type you mention? I'd really like to hear about them.

With respect Tinker, I think you'd find more problems in those areas than the just a lack of affordable housing.

Usually, the areas in question are unattractive in lots of ways, i understood pathfinder schemes to address the additional issues blighting the area. How would your suggestion solve all of the problems in the types of areas highlighted?

[macfarlan]

Agree totally.

It just seem like such a pointless waste seeing those houses boarded up when there are housing waiting lists.

And why on Earth couldn't one row of houses be purchased, demolished and built upon, one by one rather than a number of rows of houses left to rot?

Probably because it made sense at the time to do it the way they did it, I would guess. But what's the point in one mushroom asking another mushroom why its dark?

[Blod]

As has already been mentioned Prescott is responsible for this. His family are all involved in property and it was an open secret that this was a nice little earner for the developers. He certainly knows how to feather his nest. :angry:

[ccc]

Of course, this would cost nothing, and address all of the associated problems these kinds of areas have, i.e. Lack of jobs, lack of pride, lack of respect, lack of health, lack of skills, lack of initiative, lack of incentive, lack of investment into the area, lack of hope, etc wouldn't it?

Really, how would your idea be implemented, much would would it cost, how would all of the above be addressed without massive govt spending or attracting outside investment into an area suffering from a list of problem of the type identified? If it's possible to attract outside investment, whats in it for the investor? If i't not, then without outside investment we all have to pay for it via our taxes.

Are there any working examples in existence of the type you mention? I'd really like to hear about them.

With respect Tinker, I think you'd find more problems in those areas than the just a lack of affordable housing.

Usually, the areas in question are unattractive in lots of ways, i understood pathfinder schemes to address the additional issues blighting the area. How would your suggestion solve all of the problems in the types of areas highlighted?

Quite simple. People looking to get their own place can actually afford to get one in this area = the area is suddenly full of people who actually want to live there and look after the area. Result - area is not a pile of shit anymore.

Now that is clearly a simple high level assessment. However I don't think it is much more complicated than that.

[Self Employed Youth]

Agree totally.

It just seem like such a pointless waste seeing those houses boarded up when there are housing waiting lists.

And why on Earth couldn't one row of houses be purchased, demolished and built upon, one by one rather than a number of rows of houses left to rot?

One row could be replaced with one row of high density housing.

4 rows could be replaced with 5 rows

[tinker]

Of course, this would cost nothing, and address all of the associated problems these kinds of areas have, i.e. Lack of jobs, lack of pride, lack of respect, lack of health, lack of skills, lack of initiative, lack of incentive, lack of investment into the area, lack of hope, etc wouldn't it?

//

With respect Tinker, I think you'd find more problems in those areas than the just a lack of affordable housing.

Usually, the areas in question are unattractive in lots of ways, i understood pathfinder schemes to address the additional issues blighting the area. How would your suggestion solve all of the problems in the types of areas highlighted?

The thing is what we have hasn't worked, whether it is the top down approach, the handout driven culture or the usual suspects being involved. Nobody is saying it would be easy but neither does it have to be that complicated

The problem with this country is that housing is vastly overpriced, yet we are demolishing, not refurbishing properties that could be homes for people starting out or for local individuals, co-operatives and not-for-profit housing associations with a business plan to do something. Sell the houses off cheap so that the incentive is there to modernise and let the market regenerate these areas.

Tonight, a good while back did a programme on this showing that a refurbishment could be done at a fraction of the cost and turn out some really impressive results. Terraces too small, knock 2 into 1. The government could encourage it, but it doesn't need to finance it when a mortgage or rental income could help raise the capital.

The problem with Pathfinder was the cheaper option was ignored for the mega-buck solution preferred by developers.

The micro-solution might actually encourage small businesses and local tradesmen.

The point being the country simply does not have the money for the big agenda driven ideas anymore.

[macfarlan]

Firstly, apologies for slow response, I don't get the time to visit here as often as I used to.

Secondly;

Quite simple. People looking to get their own place can actually afford to get one in this area = the area is suddenly full of people who actually want to live there and look after the area. Result - area is not a pile of shit anymore.

Now that is clearly a simple high level assessment. However I don't think it is much more complicated than that.

No it's not, it's just a huge leap of faith. and it IS complicated, and you cant simplify and extremely complex problem like that without failing.

The people who lived there WERE the people who could afford to be there, and they probably wanted to be there, but things still went wrong. Are you suggesting to simply encourage 'the problem' to move elsewhere?

Also, I live in a block of flats, all private tenants, no people on benefits, these tenants still dump crap around the property. It doesn't necessarily follow that the people who can afford to live in place are there because they want to be, or that they'll look after a place. Some people just dont give a toss about anyone other than themselves.

The thing is what we have hasn't worked, whether it is the top down approach, the handout driven culture or the usual suspects being involved. Nobody is saying it would be easy but neither does it have to be that complicated

The problem with this country is that housing is vastly overpriced, yet we are demolishing, not refurbishing properties that could be homes for people starting out or for local individuals, co-operatives and not-for-profit housing associations with a business plan to do something. Sell the houses off cheap so that the incentive is there to modernise and let the market regenerate these areas.

Tonight, a good while back did a programme on this showing that a refurbishment could be done at a fraction of the cost and turn out some really impressive results. Terraces too small, knock 2 into 1. The government could encourage it, but it doesn't need to finance it when a mortgage or rental income could help raise the capital.

The problem with Pathfinder was the cheaper option was ignored for the mega-buck solution preferred by developers.

The micro-solution might actually encourage small businesses and local tradesmen.

The point being the country simply does not have the money for the big agenda driven ideas anymore.

I think that what you're proposing would be more expensive, not cheaper Tinker.

I agree, no one said it was easy, yes, I think that the solution isn't just to demolish and let the developers move in, and yes, housing is vastly overpriced in this country, but lots of the houses in these ares WERE sold to people as starter homes, they are usually a mixture of owner occupiers and renters. The areas still don't attract high prices due to the social problems there. Part of the problem is the people who live there, and the long term issues some of the residents have, another part is that developers help to pay for the costs of refurb, and take on part of the responsibility help address the social problems alongside the LA, otherwise, it would be the taxpayers footing the whole bill, and its a big bill to address all of the issues in this kind of area without any external help, i.e. private money.

I'm not sure I can see the incentive be for the developer in your scenario? If there isn't one, there's no partner, therefore no shared cost.

Maybe the overall cost would be much cheaper, but the local authority, without help, would be footing the whole of this cost.

I'm sorry Tinker, but it doesn't sound like you actually know very much about how this works, and you're just expressing an uninformed (yet still valid) view. Am I right? Apologies if this appears antagonistic, I' don't mean to do that. I'm trying to understand how this might work out.