The Affordable Housing Meme

[babesagainstmachines]

I typed the following search into google : proportion of affordable new houses

The results show me how truly utterly stupid this country has become.

http://www.northantset.co.uk/building/New-...ites.3886145.jp

In a separate agenda item, the council approved plans to increase the proportion of affordable housing provided on larger housing developments to 30 per cent and reduce the thresholds at which it should be provided from 20 to 15 properties in developments of 3,000 houses or more.

http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/Article956.htm

“We have a very good example of the benefits of co-operation on a site we are about to start work on at St Breward near Bodmin Moor,” he said.

“Land for the project has been provided by North Cornwall District Council and with further support from Devon & Cornwall Housing Association 10 of the 17 new homes to be built at this location will be affordable”.

http://www.jillelson.co.uk/article-view.as...mp;ArticleID=22

If affordable homes should form 40% of the new housing stock built in East Devon, how many new homes in total will need to be built

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite...ticleController

"But there should be no misunderstanding - the core of Boris Johnson's policy is the repeated proposal over several months to abolish the policy that 50% of all new housing should be affordable housing and this will have a devastating effect on Londoners."

http://www.kenlivingstone.com/media/kens_h...must_not_be_cut

Today Ken Livingstone launched his housing manifesto in Tower Hamlets with a pledge to keep the policy that 50% of all new housing in London should be affordable - unlike Boris Johnson who has announced he will abolish it.

Government ministers see absolutely nothing strange in debating the issue of subsidizing house building companies using tax payers money, under the Affordable Housing meme.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../71016-0003.htm

What is this utter nonesense. If house are not "affordable", then they are too expensive. The builder paid too much for the land, and/or charged to high a margin. Simple as that. All the government subsidies do is allow the builders to continue with uneconomic practices and make profits.

Even Red Ken insists that 50% of new houses should be affordable. What is this ********??? Are the other 50% going to sit empty because they are unaffordable?

[Wait & See]

I typed the following search into google : proportion of affordable new houses

The results show me how truly utterly stupid this country has become.

http://www.northantset.co.uk/building/New-...ites.3886145.jp

http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/Article956.htm

“We have a very good example of the benefits of co-operation on a site we are about to start work on at St Breward near Bodmin Moor,” he said.

“Land for the project has been provided by North Cornwall District Council and with further support from Devon & Cornwall Housing Association 10 of the 17 new homes to be built at this location will be affordable”.

http://www.jillelson.co.uk/article-view.as...mp;ArticleID=22

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite...ticleController

http://www.kenlivingstone.com/media/kens_h...must_not_be_cut

Government ministers see absolutely nothing strange in debating the issue of subsidizing house building companies using tax payers money, under the Affordable Housing meme.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../71016-0003.htm

What is this utter nonesense. If house are not "affordable", then they are too expensive. The builder paid too much for the land, and/or charged to high a margin. Simple as that. All the government subsidies do is allow the builders to continue with uneconomic practices and make profits.

Even Red Ken insists that 50% of new houses should be affordable. What is this ********??? Are the other 50% going to sit empty because they are unaffordable?

It really is fuc*ing pathetic that we have to live in a country run by halfwits. But, as mentioned before, the government are only responding to the wishes of the public, and the public don't want affordable housing as most are VI scum.

The government are degenerate trash, but most of the property owning public are too.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Wait & See

[frozen_out]

I always read for 'affordable' housing 'rubbish' housing. Of the kind most folks wouldn't be really happy living in.

Who defines affordable anyway?

[tinker]

Yes it is absolute nonsense.

Affordability is never defined. There is never any notion of the price of the property being at a level that people can afford to pay, i.e., relating to the average salary of the area.

It's simply political posturing, meaningless, and I'm afraid beyond the intelligence of local planners and politicians. Yet nobody seems to challenge this.

The quota discounts are 'shared' by the full price properties.

These "affordable housing schemes" - shared equity, etc. are designed to keep prices high (not benefiting ordinary people), keep the tax coming in, keep the boom going, keep the general public 'enslaved'.

It's a con trick of the highest order that misses the point: if house prices weren't too high, why would these schemes be needed?

Edited April 21, 2008 by tinker

[Leonard Hatred]

Prescott's £60k affordable homes are now being sold for £175k. Case closed!

[JustAnotherProle]

Ahh the old "affordable housing" canard...well I think most people would agree that this is just another NuSpeak addition to the English language. Essentially the powers that be and assorted VIs are really showing their true colours here with the creation and use of the term "affordable" next to the word "housing"...you see most of these people are so intellectually compromised they dont see the illogical use of this term because what they are failing to grasp is that to place "affordable" in front of "housing" basically makes them admit, by default ,that currently housing " in the bubble" is "unaffordable".

Oh no...cognative dissonance time.

Since when is an essential need of society such as housing suddenly split into two camps " affordable " and "unaffordable" imagine the use of this word in front of say food or air? Since when has there been a demand for something that is "unaffordable", its utter gibberish and disjointed thinking which sums up so very well the state of the UK and its govt today really.

Im sure ive mentioned this before but... oh please excuse me If I dont tug my forlock at you oh masters for providing the most basics of human needs at anywhere near a level that the average person can afford...I can really see you are doing me a favour by making a small percentage of housing "affordable"...so grateful I am sire....

[Austin Allegro]

Prescott's £60k affordable homes are now being sold for £175k. Case closed!

To be fair, the £60k always referred only to the cost of building, not the cost of land. Quite a few journos pointed this out at the time, and showed that you could build a reasonable prefab house for about £30k anyway.

'Affordable housing' is, as far as I can see, just a form of local authority taxation of builders, with the added extra of appearing to take action on the housing problem.

[Scunnered]

It turns out there's actually no such thing as an affordable home. In Edinburgh the council has a policy that a certain proportion of all the houses built in new developments should be "affordable", but the developers have managed to wriggle out of this almost completely. There were several articles about this in the Scotsman last year. Here are a couple of them:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/edinburgh/...ully.3294585.jp

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/edinburgh/...back.3337443.jp.

From the first story:

JUST 80 affordable homes have been built in the Capital in the last six years as part of a flagship council initiative - despite more than 4000 of them being promised.

The authority brought in tough rules six years ago to force builders to turn a proportion of most new private sector developments over to affordable housing.

This figure was put up to 25 per cent last year yet "shocking" new figures have revealed that only two per cent of more than 4000 cheap homes given planning consent since 2001 have actually been built.

Those builders are always keen to help the needy, eh?

Edited April 21, 2008 by Scunnered

[VacantPossession]

This affordable housing myth was blown open on this forum about three years ago. ......And they are still harping on about it. Fair example from a couple of years back: Mole Valley council was offering several flats around the Dorking area at what they described "affordable" prices. In fact they were no more "affordable" than any other new builds and were arguably above the market value at that time. The scheme required the "buyer" to pledge half the mortgage value into the property then pay "rent"on top. The rent proportion completely obliterated the tenant/buyers normal rights as either a tenant OR a buyer. The financial penalties were severe if the buyer could not sell, and even then any new buyer had to be vetted.

The whole thing added up to way in excess of a normal mortgage taken at 100% of the buying price.

Affordable housing is a fantasy myth created by market manipulators, accepted without critical faculties by the naive buyers, and promoted shamelessly and dishonestly by the builders, housing associations and local councils.

As has been pointed out, you cannot create an artificial market within another market...it just won't work. The only way housing will be "affordable" is if the whole housing stock of the UK plummets. That is the answer and no other answer is plausible, workable or honest. It beggars belief how the average man and woman on the street can take in this con of all cons.

VP

[abharrisson]

I have always struggled with forced "affordable" housing from developers for a number of reasons... let me give you an example.

1/ Pick any new build development in London and I can tell you what happens..... say the best flats are priced at say £600k min to £880k, there will be whatever percentage of "affordable" flats. The developer sets up a shared equity housing group to try and sell these, they are priced at say £350k, and in the less good slots ( eg facing the railway rather than the river)... the Shared hosuing company (bogus in my view) has a deal where incoming purchasers can 90% and then buy the remaining 10% a year later.... what happens... well firstly "affordable" housing at £350k is a non-sequitor... so eventually the housing is offloaded to investors or any old FTB at the "affordable" rate. I'd challenge ken to give me examples of any relatively central development that has not worked this way.... incidentally the normal flats have had to have their price inflated to pay for the price of affordable stuff so its a double wammy.

2/ Lets say (and its rare) there is a situation where affordable housing is built and sold... its normally as we have heard less desirable property... and secondly and this is the bit I don't get ... take a nurse who bought an affordable home ten years ago for say £55,000.... she recently sold it for £175,000..... don't balme her for making the money... but the scheme whatever it was obviously has a benefit to the first purchasers but thereafter as the price mounts its no longer affordable so whats the point.

No one as yet has made a sensibvel proposal for SUSTAINABLE affordable housing.

[jrbxyz]

To be fair, the £60k always referred only to the cost of building, not the cost of land. Quite a few journos pointed this out at the time, and showed that you could build a reasonable prefab house for about £30k anyway.

'Affordable housing' is, as far as I can see, just a form of local authority taxation of builders, with the added extra of appearing to take action on the housing problem.

That's exactly what it is, reserving a significant percentage of properties for private housing societies while, by the exclusion of 'affordable housing' from the wider market, raising the price of the remaining flats that are built. If ever there was a way for property speculators and social housing forces to screw the middle classes, this is it -- - and this is the law in London....

Edited April 21, 2008 by jrbxyz

[enigmamedusa]

Very few of the houses built will be available for a shared equity purchase, I would say a good 90% if not more will be for Housing Association tenants. It's just council houses under a different name, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Affordable homes for people on low incomes.

Is it fair that you/I can't get a cheap rent with a housing association, yes, it probably is. But you will always get some people who can't afford private rental prices, it is that bad to help them out by providing council/housing association homes? It's not like Housing Assications have shareholders or anything, any "surplus", profits to you and me, go back into affordable housing e.g. homes for tenants or share equity schemes.

And yes, I work for a HA.

[Authoritarian]

Very few of the houses built will be available for a shared equity purchase, I would say a good 90% if not more will be for Housing Association tenants. It's just council houses under a different name, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Affordable homes for people on low incomes.

Is it fair that you/I can't get a cheap rent with a housing association, yes, it probably is. But you will always get some people who can't afford private rental prices, it is that bad to help them out by providing council/housing association homes? It's not like Housing Assications have shareholders or anything, any "surplus", profits to you and me, go back into affordable housing e.g. homes for tenants or share equity schemes.

And yes, I work for a HA.

Its typical of Labour to take something simple like housing and then make it as obscure and complex as they possibly can. Shared equity, Housing Associations, Housing benefit, Open market home buy etc etc, Fu**wits. I just want a house.

Council Housing is far better than any HA on the basic premise that they were much more affordable. Simple really. HA's may be on average slightly cheaper than private renting but in terms of offering value for money for the taxpayer I would say that there up there with the rest of NL's social experiments.

[abharrisson]

Very few of the houses built will be available for a shared equity purchase, I would say a good 90% if not more will be for Housing Association tenants. It's just council houses under a different name, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Affordable homes for people on low incomes.

Is it fair that you/I can't get a cheap rent with a housing association, yes, it probably is. But you will always get some people who can't afford private rental prices, it is that bad to help them out by providing council/housing association homes? It's not like Housing Assications have shareholders or anything, any "surplus", profits to you and me, go back into affordable housing e.g. homes for tenants or share equity schemes.

And yes, I work for a HA.

I'm all for housing associations... providing good quality but perhaps cheaper (subsidised) rental for essential service workers within the communities they work in.

They only fail in my view when they start selling their properties to tenants.... if they kept them rented then they would have a sustainable plan...... the reason I prefer this approach to say council is that very often we are talking about teachers, nurses, junior policemen etc etc and them living in decent housing dotted around the area they work is a better model I believe than large council estates.

[enigmamedusa]

Its typical of Labour to take something simple like housing and then make it as obscure and complex as they possibly can. Shared equity, Housing Associations, Housing benefit, Open market home buy etc etc, Fu**wits. I just want a house.

Council Housing is far better than any HA on the basic premise that they were much more affordable. Simple really. HA's may be on average slightly cheaper than private renting but in terms of offering value for money for the taxpayer I would say that there up there with the rest of NL's social experiments.

Think that's a little harsh You can rent a beautiful 2 bed flat in a expensive part of Bristol, water fountains in shared courtyards; views of the city; built for affordable living with energy saving etc etc. I would imagine private rent is around £1,000 a month, if not more. Mixed with private owners, private renters, and then so many given to HA. Think a certain HA rents it for around £80 a week. If the rents are affordable they won't be able to build any new homes, and will be placed under supervision i.e. taken over to ensure it's run correctly.

Most HA's can only take tenants nominated by the council too, so it's the people that are supposed to be getting affordable homes, get them. HA tenants are essistenaly the exactly the same people as would have got council houses; people on low income with kids, abused women; etc

Edited April 21, 2008 by enigmamedusa

[enigmamedusa]

I'm all for housing associations... providing good quality but perhaps cheaper (subsidised) rental for essential service workers within the communities they work in.

They only fail in my view when they start selling their properties to tenants.... if they kept them rented then they would have a sustainable plan...... the reason I prefer this approach to say council is that very often we are talking about teachers, nurses, junior policemen etc etc and them living in decent housing dotted around the area they work is a better model I believe than large council estates.

That doesn't really happen anymore. To have a right to buy/right to acquire you had to be in a home before 1985 or something, normally it's just applies to council tenants who have lived in a council property and then the property was transferred to the HA in a stock transfer. And these people are slowing reducing (dying). All tennacies now are assured tennacies.

I'm no expert though

Edited April 21, 2008 by enigmamedusa

[jammo]

Why are they actually planning to build huge amounts of unaffordable housing? By definition they won't be able to sell them durrr

[Fancypants]

That doesn't really happen anymore. To have a right to buy/right to acquire you had to be in a home before 1985 or something, normally it's just applies to council tenants who have lived in a council property and then the property was transferred to the HA in a stock transfer. And these people are slowing reducing (dying). All tennacies now are assured tennacies.

I'm no expert though

London HAs are pushing RTB very hard - they need the income to offset their huge budget deficits, made worse by the credit crunch. They're not having much success though, its a flawed idea - after all, if the HA tenants could afford to buy, why would they be in social housing in the first place?

[Authoritarian]

Think that's a little harsh You can rent a beautiful 2 bed flat in a expensive part of Bristol, water fountains in shared courtyards; views of the city; built for affordable living with energy saving etc etc. I would imagine private rent is around £1,000 a month, if not more. Mixed with private owners, private renters, and then so many given to HA. Think a certain HA rents it for around £80 a week. If the rents are affordable they won't be able to build any new homes, and will be placed under supervision i.e. taken over to ensure it's run correctly.

Most HA's can only take tenants nominated by the council too, so it's the people that are supposed to be getting affordable homes, get them. HA tenants are essistenaly the exactly the same people as would have got council houses; people on low income with kids, abused women; etc

Lets clear one thing up, new builds are not 'given' to HA's, whilst local councils may demand that new developments have to allocate a certain % of their housing stock as affordable this in practice is just a poor attempt as public relations. The issue is this, Labour have corruptly inflated the housing market and now expect people to be grateful when they spend their hard earned tax money on schemes that make otherwise intelligent and able people rely on state support. If the market was honest in the first place there would be no need for such waste!

Another reason why I'm particularly against these schemes is that I don't see it as a decent public investment, with Council Housing it was quite clear who owned it. With HA's just like the banks, they scream for independence yet at the same time have their hands out demanding public funds. Council homes were able to offer cheaper rent than HA's and at the same time generate profits that central government were able to use. I doubt that an association has ever been able to achieve this.

Edited April 21, 2008 by chefdave

[Saving For a Space Ship]

I typed the following search into google : proportion of affordable new houses

The results show me how truly utterly stupid this country has become.

http://www.northantset.co.uk/building/New-...ites.3886145.jp

http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/Article956.htm

“We have a very good example of the benefits of co-operation on a site we are about to start work on at St Breward near Bodmin Moor,” he said.

“Land for the project has been provided by North Cornwall District Council and with further support from Devon & Cornwall Housing Association 10 of the 17 new homes to be built at this location will be affordable”.

http://www.jillelson.co.uk/article-view.as...mp;ArticleID=22

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite...ticleController

http://www.kenlivingstone.com/media/kens_h...must_not_be_cut

Government ministers see absolutely nothing strange in debating the issue of subsidizing house building companies using tax payers money, under the Affordable Housing meme.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../71016-0003.htm

What is this utter nonesense. If house are not "affordable", then they are too expensive. The builder paid too much for the land, and/or charged to high a margin. Simple as that. All the government subsidies do is allow the builders to continue with uneconomic practices and make profits.

Even Red Ken insists that 50% of new houses should be affordable. What is this ********??? Are the other 50% going to sit empty because they are unaffordable?

OP, funny you should mention memes in relation to housing, as I have been thinking about this recently.

With regard to 'affordable housing' the type of propaganda, you mention could perhaps be called 'shelterwash' or 'poorwash' (forgive the pun) in the sense of 'greenwash'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash

Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.[1] The term Green sheen has similarly been used to describe organisations which attempt to appear that they are adopting practices benefical to the environment.[2]

Sorry to wander a bit off topic, but with regards to housing related memes, I recently had an email from meme guru Susan Blackmore, author of the excellent 'Meme Machine' book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meme-Machine-Richa...4963&sr=8-2

about a third replicator temes (tech memes)

http://www.re-use.com/index.php?option=com...s&Itemid=50

It got me thinking that certain oft discussed (destructive imo) memes like 'house prices only ever go up' & over-consumerist meme 'keeping up with the jones' etc are potentially 'auto toxic' or 'kamikaze' memes as the consequences may eventually kill their host through overwork / bankruptcy / poverty / stress / mental illness and environmental / resource depletion.

Of course, they may have led many people, and the system itself to the edge of financial disaster with the credit crunch and the potential consequences.

I intend to ask Ms Blackmore about her thought on the subject, so will start a thread if I get further in this area.

Memes do not have to be truthful to be robust and spreadable. Nor must they be ultimately beneficial to the host. Keith Henson points out that Reverend Jim Jones' memes became weirder and weirder when he isolated his group in the jungle, because the well-established memes existing in society could not compete nor provide corrective feedback against his barrage of poisonous memes. (3) The Jim Jones meme, the Kamikaze meme and other martyr memes are auto-toxic; they kill their hosts.

http://www.zinebook.com/resource/memes.html

Edited April 21, 2008 by Saving For a Space Ship

[enigmamedusa]

London HAs are pushing RTB very hard - they need the income to offset their huge budget deficits, made worse by the credit crunch. They're not having much success though, its a flawed idea - after all, if the HA tenants could afford to buy, why would they be in social housing in the first place?

Yeah, to clarify I meant it is less common as the only people who can do it had to be ex-council tenants and not housing association tenants.

For the rest of your post, I agree it is strange, not sure I agree with RTB 100%

[enigmamedusa]

Lets clear one thing up, new builds are not 'given' to HA's, whilst local councils may demand that new developments have to allocate a certain % of their housing stock as affordable this in practice is just a poor attempt as public relations. The issue is this, Labour have corruptly inflated the housing market and now expect people to be grateful when they spend their hard earned tax money on schemes that make otherwise intelligent and able people rely on state support. If the market was honest in the first place there would be no need for such waste!

Another reason why I'm particularly against these schemes is that I don't see it as a decent public investment, with Council Housing it was quite clear who owned it. With HA's just like the banks, they scream for independence yet at the same time have their hands out demanding public funds. Council homes were able to offer cheaper rent than HA's and at the same time generate profits that central government were able to use. I doubt that an association has ever been able to achieve this.

'Given' was a poor turn of phrase. How's 'allocated' instead?

Comparing banks to HA's is mental. HA's are charities, have no shareholders, have lots of regulation, can be taken over at any time if run badly, stopped from developing or buying land if poorly run, HA's given no grants if poorly run, audited heavily and benchmarked against good practice etc etc .

HA's profits, if they make any, go to into more affordable housing, nothing else, it's simply not allowed. So indirectly they are generating cash which benefits the government; more cash generated means less the government has to spend on affordable housing. The reason most HA's exist is that the council transferred their stock because they couldn't run maintain them properly, and the HA's are allowed to get mortgages to fund developments if they haven't got enough surplus cash.

Banks are generally; money grabbing, make massive profits, care little for customers, make a few people very rich, take the profits and then ask for state help when they've spent it all instead of going to shareholders.

Again I'm far from an expert, but I don't see the banks comparsion at all.

[Authoritarian]

'Given' was a poor turn of phrase. How's 'allocated' instead?

Comparing banks to HA's is mental. HA's are charities, have no shareholders, have lots of regulation, can be taken over at any time if run badly, stopped from developing or buying land if poorly run, HA's given no grants if poorly run, audited heavily and benchmarked against good practice etc etc .

HA's profits, if they make any, go to into more affordable housing, nothing else, it's simply not allowed. So indirectly they are generating cash which benefits the government; more cash generated means less the government has to spend on affordable housing. The reason most HA's exist is that the council transferred their stock because they couldn't run maintain them properly, and the HA's are allowed to get mortgages to fund developments if they haven't got enough surplus cash.

Banks are generally; money grabbing, make massive profits, care little for customers, make a few people very rich, take the profits and then ask for state help when they've spent it all instead of going to shareholders.

Again I'm far from an expert, but I don't see the banks comparsion at all.

This is who benefits from HA's

1) Lab get to say they're tackling the housing crisis

2) Private investors get a lovely safe return

3) Developers get to offload some stock

4) Public sector paper shufflers get to shuffle more public sector paper.

5) Occassionally a poor person might get a reasonably priced home

As for the HA's generating cash for HMG this is a bogus argument, particularly on the day when we've just been exposed to another £50billion

Edited April 21, 2008 by chefdave

[enigmamedusa]

This is who benefits from HA's

1) Lab get to say they're tackling the housing crisis

2) Private investors get a lovely safe return

3) Developers get to offload some stock

4) Public sector paper shufflers get to shuffle more public sector paper.

5) Occassionally a poor person might get a reasonably priced home

As for the HA's generating cash for HMG this is a bogus argument, particularly on the day when we've just been exposed to another £50billion

I might be wrong, so please correct me accordingly:

1. You know nothing about HA's, at all. But you want to rant.

2. You think HA's were not around before "new" labour got into power

3. You think HA's have private investors!!!

4. You have no idea of the relationship between developers and HA's and how it works.

5. You have no idea how many people HA's home or the other work they do

6. Somehow you've linked HA who are charties with no shareholders, and the £50billion given to organisations designed to give returns to shareholders.

7. Back to point 1.

I was only trying to pass on some useful information, but I won't bother in the future

Edited April 21, 2008 by enigmamedusa

[iamnumerate]

I always read for 'affordable' housing 'rubbish' housing. Of the kind most folks wouldn't be really happy living in.

Who defines affordable anyway?

I always thought that affordable meant housing only certain people can buy i.e not me as I am a white man and do not work for the Government.