£1 Houses - When Governments Meddle In The Housing Market

[Bruce Banner]

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34797019

The Housing Market Renewal Initiative (or Pathfinders)

• The intention was to renew failing housing markets and reconnect them to regional markets
• It was launched in 2002 and ran until 2011 when the coalition government ended funding
• There were nine Pathfinders schemes in Birmingham/Sandwell, East Lancashire, Hull and East Riding, Manchester/Salford, Merseyside, Newcastle/Gateshead, North Staffordshire, Oldham/Rochdale, and South Yorkshire
• Each scheme was allowed relative freedom to develop strategies; their boards were made up of members from local authorities and other key regional and local stakeholders

Source: House of Commons

[Si1]

"The intention was to renew failing housing markets and reconnect them to regional markets"

Does anyone know what that means?

(Takes me back to the halcyon days of public sector management nonsense speak)

[interestrateripoff]

"The intention was to renew failing housing markets and reconnect them to regional markets"

Does anyone know what that means?

(Takes me back to the halcyon days of public sector management nonsense speak)

Yes, they want the worthless housing stock to be going up like everything else in the local area and price out the low waged. Simples.

[SarahBell]

"The intention was to renew failing housing markets and reconnect them to regional markets"

Kick people out of houses in a huge area and then leave derelict until someone's mate coughed up the right money to develop them with the right grants.

In reality destroying huge areas.

[tinker]

Pathfinder was not the same as the £1 houses schemes, the latter having the more worthy goal of bringing existing properties and communities back to life - of course, it fails if said properties allow a few to turn a huge profit in the short-term.

Pathfinder was a pernicious Precott scheme that razed areas to the ground on the back of a property bubble and speculative frenzy Wide-open to dodgy dealings. It failed because the public money ran out and the credit fuelling the bubble dried up. Renovating many of those areas would have been the cheaper, more productive option.

[Si1]

Pathfinder was not the same as the £1 houses schemes, the latter having the more worthy goal of bringing existing properties and communities back to life - of course, it fails if said properties allow a few to turn a huge profit in the short-term.

Pathfinder was a pernicious Precott scheme that razed areas to the ground on the back of a property bubble and speculative frenzy Wide-open to dodgy dealings. It failed because the public money ran out and the credit fuelling the bubble dried up. Renovating many of those areas would have been the cheaper, more productive option.

I never understood Prescott's pathfinder scheme. So they demolished a load of derelict houses and then what?

[porca misèria]

Prescott's scheme had strong echoes of old labour: knock down existing housing (displacing whoever lived there - including healthy communities), and put up all those shiny highways in the sky. Only the relationship to the builders was a bit more discrete than in the days of T Dan Smith.

[Si1]

Prescott's scheme had strong echoes of old labour: knock down existing housing (displacing whoever lived there - including healthy communities), and put up all those shiny highways in the sky. Only the relationship to the builders was a bit more discrete than in the days of T Dan Smith.

There's an element of the traditional British working class that Labour have often seemed to misunderstand. Cleanliness was next to godliness, irrespective of how poor a family was. Real pride in themselves and their community. But significant elements of the Labour mindset believe in stifling nanny-ing, and pour scorn on self reliance and independence. Given the choice between helping people improve their own communities, and out and out bulldozing, I'm not surprised labour went for the latter.

[RandomFactor]

I think the homesteading idea is worth a try. It seems to have worked in the past. I see places in newcastle that had a bad reputation with run down houses that were being sold off for 50p, 20 odd years ago, that now seem much better. Houses all occupied, areas improved significantly, in a better state of repair, and selling for six figures.

It seems that selling them off cheap to individuals to actually live in themselves is seen is a last resort nowadays though. I came across this place in the north east recently:

http://www.channel4.com/news/horden-county-durham-bedroom-tax-one-pound-housing

Despite much talk of selling them off for a pound to local people, all I could find was that the housing association in charge of them had made an offer to sell them back to the council at a pound each (which was rejected), and that their hopes to sell them to other landlords already invested in the area was falling flat.

I notice they're now appearing on rightmove/zoopla/onthemarket at around £10k each:

https://www.onthemarket.com/for-sale/property/sr8/?view=grid&direction=asc

Apparently the reason they fell empty wasn't so much because of the quality or upkeep, but because they were small two bedroom places that housed mostly single people, and when the bedroom tax came in, people started moving out and they couldn't let them.

There seems something quite wrong with this situation to me. Instead of offering them to the council for a quid each, they could have offered them directly to young local people on the understanding that they live in them and look after them to a reasonable standard (which I suspect is more likely if they feel invested in the area personally rather than renting).

Infact, they could have given the f*king things to the previous tennants for £1 each, and the cost of ongoing maintenance would have probably been a fraction of the cost of housing benefit for those tennants each year, even at the rate reduced bedroom tax rate I'd guess.

But then ongoing rent/housing benefit extraction would have been taken out of the equation, and I get the impression this is seen as a bad thing.

Or perhaps I'm just being naive. I must admit, I don't know all the ins and outs, but it did strike me as odd when I saw them appearing on rightmove/onthemarket at £10k each (presumably to attract private landlords?) when they'd previously offered them for a pound each to the local council. What happened to the homes for £1 for locals scheme they were talking about earlier.

Edited November 16, 2015 by RandomFactor

[durhamborn]

I think the homesteading idea is worth a try. It seems to have worked in the past. I see places in newcastle that had a bad reputation with run down houses that were being sold off for 50p, 20 odd years ago, that now seem much better. Houses all occupied, areas improved significantly, in a better state of repair, and selling for six figures.

It seems that selling them off cheap to individuals to actually live in themselves is seen is a last resort nowadays though. I came across this place in the north east recently:

http://www.channel4.com/news/horden-county-durham-bedroom-tax-one-pound-housing

Despite much talk of selling them off for a pound to local people, all I could find was that the housing association in charge of them had made an offer to sell them back to the council at a pound each (which was rejected), and that their hopes to sell them to other landlords already invested in the area was falling flat.

I notice they're now appearing on rightmove/zoopla/onthemarket at around £10k each:

https://www.onthemarket.com/for-sale/property/sr8/?view=grid&direction=asc

Apparently the reason they fell empty wasn't so much because of the quality or upkeep, but because they were small two bedroom places that housed mostly single people, and when the bedroom tax came in, people started moving out and they couldn't let them.

There seems something quite wrong with this situation to me. Instead of offering them to the council for a quid each, they could have offered them directly to young local people on the understanding that they live in them and look after them to a reasonable standard (which I suspect is more likely if they feel invested in the area personally rather than renting).

Infact, they could have given the f*king things to the previous tennants for £1 each, and the cost of ongoing maintenance would have probably been a fraction of the cost of housing benefit for those tennants each year, even at the rate reduced bedroom tax rate I'd guess.

But then ongoing rent/housing benefit extraction would have been taken out of the equation, and I get the impression this is seen as a bad thing.

Or perhaps I'm just being naive. I must admit, I don't know all the ins and outs, but it did strike me as odd when I saw them appearing on rightmove/onthemarket at £10k each (presumably to attract private landlords?) when they'd previously offered them for a pound each to the local council. What happened to the homes for £1 for locals scheme they were talking about earlier.

The last thing HA,LA's and ALMO's want is people owing their own homes.If that happens their final salary pension's,6 month a year full sick pay (then 6 months half pay),100% flexi hours (they all leave at 2pm on a friday) and huge salaries,all paid for with HB/LHA goes up in smoke.

In the words of an ex Labour councillor to me who also was a board member on some housing quango "we need to tackle poverty but in a way where people are still in need of the state,",

[Motor_Blade]

What a total & utter f**k up......you couldn't make it up, really you couldn't. If braincells were gunpowder, most politicians would struggle to singe their hair.

[billybong]

What a total & utter f**k up......you couldn't make it up, really you couldn't. If braincells were gunpowder, most politicians would struggle to singe their hair.

So true - expenses claims is all the crooks know.

Edited November 16, 2015 by billybong