chem1st Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 Are there enough houses in Sheffield to go round? Most council properties are flats and a lot of people are happy to rent. If you rent you get the chance of a transfer. If you own you have to sell and buy again, which can be expensive. Private landlords may be sharks but so are estate agents. Sheffield would still need a lot pf private-rented properties for students, people who are working here temporarily, et al. And you'd be giving someone a house just if, for example, that person gets Child Benefit for just one child under your benefits eligibility test. There aren't enough houses to go around, nobody has been building houses, they have been knocking them down. Shoebox flats have been built to maximise rental yields for landlords. Under my policy of buying everyone on benefits a house. Developers will build housing to meet the demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 There aren't enough houses to go around, nobody has been building houses, they have been knocking them down. Shoebox flats have been built to maximise rental yields for landlords. Under my policy of buying everyone on benefits a house. Developers will build housing to meet the demand. That will require a lot of land. You can knock down a lot of the council flat estates and build houses but you'd have fewer homes and you'd have to put the displaced somewhere in the meantime. You could use brownfield sites but at some point you'd have to use the greenbelt. Some people prefer flats anyway. Some may be small but so are some houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 That will require a lot of land. You can knock down a lot of the council flat estates and build houses but you'd have fewer homes and you'd have to put the displaced somewhere in the meantime. You could use brownfield sites but at some point you'd have to use the greenbelt. Some people prefer flats anyway. Some may be small but so are some houses. We have already knocked loads down under pathfinder. Plenty of land available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 And close to the pubs. No chance, apart from the Rawson Spring I wouldn't drink in ANY of the Hillsborough Pubs, and I wouldn't go in the Rawson at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Employ people to build houses and allow them to live rent free in an house they have helped build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Will we give these people housing maintenance benefit too? Or should we just watch the properties deteriorate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 the buy to let market is booming. is it, do you have any figures ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helpmeplz Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Yay! More reasons to upset the Mail readers! Buy me a nice House in Hillsborough if you want, close to the Buses, Trams and Wadsley Bridge Internet Exchange, well close enough to get decent speeds Please note, I am NOT being serious with that last bit! Its a shame tax payers have to keep you in computer games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Its a shame tax payers have to keep you in computer games. Its a shame a shame that so much of taxpayers money is spent on young men who spend all day on an x-box. Can't see it being a very fulfilling life, being in your 30s and playing with yourself all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Landlords profit from the lack of social housing. Family lives in rented house at tax-payers expense for 5 years, cost to tax payer £30,000. The landlord receives all of this. Local Authority builds house for family, cost £60,000. Family claim Goveernment benefits and pay their landlord, the Local Authority £500 per month. The government retains the house, so still has the capital. Have I got something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.