HeadingNorth Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Those houses on your road should not have been allowed to be bought from the council in the first place. You'd prefer that poor people pay rent to the council their whole lives and never get anything for it? Personally, I think it's better that they end up with a house of their own, and get some reward. But then, I'd prefer that poor people not be forced to remain poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Don't talk rubbish. If they want to buy a home, then they can go buy from a private owner. Council houses are there for the 'poor' as you put it and when idiots buy them, there becomes a shortage of affordable places to live. Just like the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Don't talk rubbish. If they want to buy a home, then they can go buy from a private owner. Council houses are there for the 'poor' as you put it and when idiots buy them, there becomes a shortage of affordable places to live. Just like the current situation. those idiots you talk about...are now living rent free...and spend the winter months in benidorm...on the equity...most of the council houses around S12 have been sold off years ago....mind you they are still available for around 100k....nice little earner for those who took the gamble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I always thought that was the reason you voted councillors in..to make these decisions:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 those idiots you talk about...are now living rent free...and spend the winter months in benidorm...on the equity...most of the council houses around S12 have been sold off years ago....mind you they are still available for around 100k....nice little earner for those who took the gamble... And a lack of opportunity to rent for future generations. I'm against Right to Buy in principle, but I don't blame individuals for buying their home, especially those that had lived in them for a long time. Most people who had the chance of a low valuation along with a large discount would have done the same. Its surprising how many young people who want council houses don't realise the reason they have to wait a long time (if ever) is because their parents bought theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I always thought that was the reason you voted councillors in..to make these decisions:huh: Councillors have to abide by the law made by the government, and the government brought in the Right to Buy. Sheffield council was against it for a long time, but couldn't hold out for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 You'd prefer that poor people pay rent to the council their whole lives and never get anything for it? Personally, I think it's better that they end up with a house of their own, and get some reward. But then, I'd prefer that poor people not be forced to remain poor. Its important to realise that many of the people who bought weren't poor. Back in the days when tenants were vetted, many well paid people opted for council housing, but only in preferred areas. They were then the ones best placed to buy the houses that increased in value in the more 'upmarket' areas. Some of those areas have few if any council homes left, and the ex council houses sell for the same as privately built ones so are unlikely to be an option now for a first time buyer. Worrall is a good example where there are lovely homes, built for rent in a nice rural setting. I'd be surprised if there are more than one or two left that aren't sold now. A buyer there would have made a deal more than those who bought on one of the large estates like Parson X or Manor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 My comment was an attempt at sarcasm directed at the two posts above mine. I feel I pulled it off quite well but obviously I failed. We really need a sarcasm emoticon! It's called NIMBY'ism. The fact is that those people have to be housed, it is a legal requirement of the council. If you don't like it I suggest you go live in the middle of no-where with no neighbours. Or nowhere near the council properties likely to be used to house families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 We really need a sarcasm emoticon! It's called NIMBY'ism. The fact is that those people have to be housed, it is a legal requirement of the council. If you don't like it I suggest you go live in the middle of no-where with no neighbours. Or nowhere near the council properties likely to be used to house families. Nobody has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Nobody has issue with housing anyone especially families. What they do have issue with is anti social behaviour regardless of who is causing it and the answer is not for nice people to go and live in the middle of nowhere, quite the opposite actually. The fact remains the council is under an obligation to house families with a-s behaviour problems. Your argument seems to be I don't have a problem with them being housed, just not here! NIMBY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.