Should council house rents be at normal market value?

[Conrod]

We the collective people of the state build a house, which is then rented out to a member of the state. The rent eventually pays for the cost of the house, be it in 10, 20, 25, 50 years..

By that logic, the house should be provided free after a few years of rent - maybe we should make rent a pound a week, and calculate the payoff over a thousand years.

 

Or, maybe, we need to protect the nation's interests by making best use of its assets and funding? If the market rate of a rental property is more than the council is charging, the council is letting the taxpayer down.

 

The government, and councils, have a duty of care to make best use of their budgets, which are provided by the taxpayer - they do not exist just to give a free ride to those who want it.

[BritPat]

Should council house rents be at normal market value?

 

If not, why not?

 

If so, why so?

 

What is the point of having social housing at market value?

 

If all could afford the market value the need for social housing would be obviated by definition would it not?

[Wildcat]

I have seen the tender returns for social housing and I know what it costs to build for the private market. Bear in mind that these are only the construction costs and that the public sector also has some extraordinary administration costs on top of this.

 

For interest, the public subsidy alone for the Park Hill refurbishment is about what the private sector could build brand new houses for.

 

This interesting aside is all a little off topic though so I'll leave it there.

 

Your example appears to be that the Park Hill redevelopment is expensive? Urban Splash so far as I am aware is a private sector development agency.

 

Your example would appear to contradict the claims you are making.

[Wildcat]

What is the point of having social housing at market value?

 

If all could afford the market value the need for social housing would be obviated by definition would it not?

 

That point has been made several times now.

 

I don't think those arguing for market values understand what social housing is.

[Stormy]

What is the point of having social housing at market value?

 

If all could afford the market value the need for social housing would be obviated by definition would it not?

 

Thats what I thought.... Of course it shouldn't be at market value, otherwise whats the point of it?

[chem1st]

Your example appears to be that the Park Hill redevelopment is expensive? Urban Splash so far as I am aware is a private sector development agency.

 

Your example would appear to contradict the claims you are making.

 

It has had a lot of public funding, in addition to the deeds to the largest listed building in the EU.

[Stormy]

Personally I'd say we need a lot more schemes such as shared ownership housing, these brilliant schemes are the key to getting younger people onto the housing ladder, should they wish to do so. There are nowhere near enough of these schemes and they dont get enough publicity.

And of course we also need council housing with lower than market rates for the rent. To argue that it should be at market value is bizarre, why wait on a waiting list for years only to pay market rate?

[chem1st]

Personally I'd say we need a lot more schemes such as shared ownership housing, these brilliant schemes are the key to getting younger people onto the housing ladder, should they wish to do so. There are nowhere near enough of these schemes and they dont get enough publicity.

And of course we also need council housing with lower than market rates for the rent. To argue that it should be at market value is bizarre, why wait on a waiting list for years only to pay market rate?

 

Anybody wanting to live in shared ownership housing is a fool.

[Cyclone]

Housing benefit serves the same purpose as social housing, we do not need both.

[Stormy]

Anybody wanting to live in shared ownership housing is a fool.

 

Why do you think that? How else can you get on the housing ladder without having to save up for a deposit?

If you're about to say "because you pay rent as well as have a mortgage" then you should obviously be aware that you only pay rent on the equity that you don't own. The total amount paid tends to be less than the market rent for a similar property and you can up your equity stake at any time. And you don't need a deposit. I can't see the problem with them.