poppet2 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Here we go again, let's ghettoise the poor shall we. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/aug/20/social-housing-expensive-locations?newsfeed=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Nice to see you're on the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Aren't ordinary house owners (those who buy their own houses) 'ghettoised'? Or can all house owners afford to buy any house they want? If you have a limited amount of money (and even councils have a limited amount of money ) and you have one house which can house one family which you could sell for enough money to allow you to build 10 houses and house 10 families, do you think the 9 families waiting for houses would say: "Oh, it's OK. That family can stay where they are and we'll do without." Or do you think they might say: "There are a lot of us on the waiting list. We need houses too?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Here we go again, let's ghettoise the poor shall we. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/aug/20/social-housing-expensive-locations?newsfeed=true Have you read the whole story? The idea is to sell of expensive homes and use the cash to build more social housing,so instead of one family having a home several can live in the new homes built... one expensive home sold = more than one new house built.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Have you read the whole story? The idea is to sell of expensive homes and use the cash to build more social housing,so instead of one family having a home several can live in the new homes built... one expensive home sold = more than one new house built.. This makes perfect sense to me. A great way of financing homes for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Very good idea. It'll provide more housing paid for by the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Very good idea. It'll provide more housing paid for by the private sector. I wonder if SF's own propery/land guru approves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Only if they come with allotments on the roofs, are given free to everyone who earns the same/less than him and the land is stolen from everyone else who earns more than him. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Most local authorities have or had 'sundry' properties. Those are houses or flats that are not purpose built social housing, but ones that councils have acquired for a variety of reasons. Many are substantial properties in areas that are out of reach of most people. Some have been sold off over the years, by auction or via Right to Buy. If councils would genuinely use the money raised to increase their housing stock then it could give more people a chance of affordable rented housing. I also think that the Right to Buy should be suspended until the demand for social housing reduces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 There's no reason that they couldn't manage the process carefully to ensure that they don't sell off every council house in a desirable postcode and build lots more somewhere unpleasant. For example, it wouldn't be desirable to sell off all the council housing in Totley and Dore, and build a large new estate on the playing fields at Parsons Cross. That will result in ghettoisation and reduce the diversity of Dore. But if there are a several houses in Dore which even there are worth above the average, and selling those could fund building 10 more houses in Dore, then it increases the diversity whilst also helping to house more people. It just needs to be managed carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.