alex3659 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I don't follow the logic. Private tenants do the same and can be removed at one month's notice on the whim of the landlord; the council would only be doing so if there is someone else in greater need of the property, and can only so at a point known well in advance. The tory mob caused this problem and now they are trying to solve it with a method which will not only backfire but split communities and families. They will never ban the right to buy because it was their big dream and younger people will buy them up. Also with older people it would force them into buying cheaper which is their right thus making less council housing available. Did you know that people on benefits have the right to buy and can do it quite easily on benefits?. This is being done all the time. They never actually pay a penny themselves. The rent payment just changes to a mortgage payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 None of that provides any sort of a rationale for council tenants having a permanent right of abode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 None of that provides any sort of a rationale for council tenants having a permanent right of abode. I didn't tink for one minute it would to you. The simple fact that it would create less council housing available is enough. Never mind the moral side of it, splitting long standing communities and families up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 The simple fact that it would create less council housing available is enough. It will not affect the amount of council housing one iota. All that will happen is that such housing as there is, will be more efficiently used. I've still not heard any moral argument that requires people be allowed to remain in one house life-long. Merely asserting that there is one is no argument at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 It will not affect the amount of council housing one iota. All that will happen is that such housing as there is, will be more efficiently used. I've still not heard any moral argument that requires people be allowed to remain in one house life-long. Merely asserting that there is one is no argument at all. It will affect the amount of council housing available for the reasons stated. The moral argument has also been stated. As you said to Eastbank. You are not furthering the debate one iota by just treading the same ground which has been covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 None of that provides any sort of a rationale for council tenants having a permanent right of abode. Quite. All planning applications today for over 15 houses are subject to an affordable housing provision - of around 40%. That means (just to spell it out) that almost half of the properties on a new development are intended to be social housing. Several issues here: 1) Those houses (in one example of which I am aware, but it's typical) can only be sold to a housing association for a maximum of £40,000. This includes the build cost for the house, the cost of services and infrastructure (road, sewerage, gas, electric, water etc) and also the cost of the land. This effectively means that the developer is required to subsidise the affordable housing by (very approximately) £60,000 FOR EACH SOCIAL HOUSE. 2) If the developer has to subsidise to this extent, there is no alternative but to push up the selling price of the market houses to meet the cost. This means that people who are buying on a mortgage are having to pay more for their house because of the social houses that the government insists on. 3) I wonder how many people viewing a house on a new development are aware that potentially 40% of the houses on that development (they all look the same, except quite possibly the social houses have been built to a higher spec due to housing association requirements re insulation, renewable sources etc) will be inhabited by social housing tenants. 4) Some of these tenants will appreciate the privilege of living on a lovely new estate however it is likely that there will be some tenants who do not, and who treat their house in a way that, if they were owner-occupiers, they would not. 4) There's no question that a number of people, at a certain stage of their life, will require the safety net of the state to provide a roof over their house. It's only right that they should have accommodation that is safe, appropriate, decent and affordable. However, is it right that they should, merely by dint of having once had a need, be able to live for ever alongside people who spend every spare penny they earn on meeting the mortgage payments, even once their personal circumstances change for the better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 It will affect the amount of council housing available for the reasons stated. It will not; it cannot. Moving one family out of one council house into another, and moving a second family from the other into the one, has no effect at all on the number of available houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 It will not; it cannot. Moving one family out of one council house into another, and moving a second family from the other into the one, has no effect at all on the number of available houses. My daughter [and her friends] all tried to get council HOUSES for the only purpose of getting onto the housing ladder cheaply. A pensioner gets moved into a flat from her house, A twenty two year old couple get the house and as soon as they can use their right to buy it. Would you not agree that one council house LESS is now available?. My daughter got a council flat and decided to buy a house private. If as some of her friends did she had got a council house she would have bought that house. The pensioner was happy to rent the house. Sooner or later they will all be bought. The one thousand houses being built by william davis in south east sheffield are a mixture of private and social housing. It is subsidised by the council. More of those houses are now going to social housing because the private ones are not selling very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ofTheseDays Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I didn't tink for one minute it would to you. The simple fact that it would create less council housing available is enough. Never mind the moral side of it, splitting long standing communities and families up. Are you Jamaican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Are you Jamaican? :hihi::hihi:. No maaan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.