truman Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Using the definition MsMacbeth posted Private home owners are confined or restricted to purchasing houses in an area they can afford. They cannot simply decide (for example) that they'd like to live in Dore if they cannot afford a house in Dore. Why are struggling to understand how the use of the word was intended, it wasn't an insult to you, you certainly aren't the only home owner on this thread, so why are you the only one outraged by the use of the word in the context it was used? Some people just look to be offended..then they go so far down the line they think they look daft when they retract....when in actual fact all that would happen is that the thread would carry on, on topic..and we'd probably get somewhere.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 So how have we become Ghettoised? Where's Rupert to answer for his silly statement?. See Ms Macbeth and Cyclone's posts above. If you still don't get it after that people will start to think you're being deliberately obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I take offence that people like you consider me Ghettoised People like who? Do you not think that most of the people you're taking offence at are home owners. Rupert (from memory) has a choice of two particular ghetto's to live in, one in Germany and one in Florida. But in both cases I assume he had to buy a house that was within his means and so lives amongst people with similar house buying abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERDREAM Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 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 Elvis sang about a Ghetto, and it was a bloody good song. I cant see what the problem is about what terminology people use to describe their area. Just the other day, a neighbour and I were discussing how much Sheffield has changed over the last ten years. It certainly has got a bit worse, and house prices do fluctuate over areas, but what the hell. I have a normal house of normal value, and I dont really give a stuff where it is or what people think of the area that I live, or where they live. Unless you have found the cure for leprosy and you have won the Nobel Peace Prize, then nobody is better or worse than me, with the exception of cyclists of course and if any council wants to sell your eight squillion pound council house at Dore, to enable them to build 20 new homes in Lowedges or High Green, then let em do it, provided they rehome you. Living in a council house is a great thing for people, but unless you own the place, you cannot seriously expect to dictate if you should stay there. If I lost my job tomorrow, I couldnt afford my mortgage, so would have to move, so where is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Wouldn’t it make more sense to continue selling them under the right to buy and using the proceeds of the sale to build another house. That way we have one more affordable private house and still have one council house (housing association), has opposed to just the council house which is occupied anyway. The problem is, where do you build them? For every council property you sell you lose the land it sits on. Yes, the Council owns the freehold but it has a leasehold property on it. Councils have less land than people might think, there comes a point where you run out of land to build new properties on, or are forced to build in areas which already lack amenities like enough schools. Land prices are low at the moment but councils don't have money to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Currently SCC has to re-house some people because their homes have become unsuitable for their needs. So for example someone might have had a mental health crisis and needs to move away from an area with a lot of social problems; crime, anti-social behaviour, racism and so forth. For some of the more fragile people, being in a quieter neighbourhood is really essential. If we sell off everything in Crookes, Totley, Walkley, etc. then where will we house them? There are also people who get a lot of support from people who live in a particular area, often saving social services thousands of pounds a year that would otherwise have to be spent to support them. We need the flexibility to be able to house them near that support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The problem is, where do you build them? For every council property you sell you lose the land it sits on. Yes, the Council owns the freehold but it has a leasehold property on it. Councils have less land than people might think, there comes a point where you run out of land to build new properties on, or are forced to build in areas which already lack amenities like enough schools. Land prices are low at the moment but councils don't have money to buy it. Land can be legally seized without compensation for the public good. At the minute, instead of selling existing properties to people via RTB, the council could build blocks on the public land in desirable and wealthy areas for outright sale without discount, and use the profits to fund building in other places where it is needed. There is demand, they have effective land costs of 0, yet they won't build £20k housing units and flog them for £200k. Instead they suggest selling current expensive units at discount, to fund building, and subsidising mortgages! Yet they have the power to borrow money/create debt, doctor currency values or even issue labour certificates/demurrage currencies and create full employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Currently SCC has to re-house some people because their homes have become unsuitable for their needs. So for example someone might have had a mental health crisis and needs to move away from an area with a lot of social problems; crime, anti-social behaviour, racism and so forth. For some of the more fragile people, being in a quieter neighbourhood is really essential. If we sell off everything in Crookes, Totley, Walkley, etc. then where will we house them? There are also people who get a lot of support from people who live in a particular area, often saving social services thousands of pounds a year that would otherwise have to be spent to support them. We need the flexibility to be able to house them near that support. Some very astute observations made but I fear that your comments wil be ignored by dogmatists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Land can be legally seized without compensation for the public good. At the minute, instead of selling existing properties to people via RTB, the council could build blocks on the public land in desirable and wealthy areas for outright sale without discount, and use the profits to fund building in other places where it is needed. There is demand, they have effective land costs of 0, yet they won't build £20k housing units and flog them for £200k. Instead they suggest selling current expensive units at discount, to fund building, and subsidising mortgages! Yet they have the power to borrow money/create debt, doctor currency values or even issue labour certificates/demurrage currencies and create full employment. I'm as much for the communalisation of land as you are, but there seems little point discussing that in the context of a capitalist system. In another world, yes. Community land trusts are more do-able in the current system. The first one has been agreed in London http://www.eastlondonclt.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Land can be legally seized without compensation for the public good. At the minute, instead of selling existing properties to people via RTB, the council could build blocks on the public land in desirable and wealthy areas for outright sale without discount, and use the profits to fund building in other places where it is needed. There is demand, they have effective land costs of 0, yet they won't build £20k housing units and flog them for £200k. Instead they suggest selling current expensive units at discount, to fund building, and subsidising mortgages! Yet they have the power to borrow money/create debt, doctor currency values or even issue labour certificates/demurrage currencies and create full employment. Sheffield city council has that power, wow, I thought those kinds of powers were reserved for central government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.