MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I quite agree Ms Macbeth. There are hundreds of houses all over the country that have just been left to rot. If these were done up and rented out at reasonable rates then more people could be housed. And although the idea of "selling off" Council houses might sound like a good idea, isn't this what happened in the 80's and the Government then took all the money and the Council's not only lost the property but didn't get any money to rebuild what they had lost? I can see the same happening again. And spent on one the services that the population used, it didn't take any housing away from the population, because it just increased the stock of affordable private houses, many of which are still occupied by the original tenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 What worries me is this is what they said when they started selling council houses - that the money made would be reinvested in new council houses, but it never happened. It all depends on whether you believe them this time... Wasn't it reinvested in housing association housing thought government subsidies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 No it isn't. It's turning a small amount of properties into a large amount of properties. I fancy living dore myself but don't expect the taxpayer to fund it. That said you don't need to build them in a rougher area, there must be a halfway house between the two. No it isn't and no it isn't. The matter has already been done to death on the BBC HYS boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 won't we see the exact same thing as we had under the original RTB? People buying up the decent properties in the "upmarket" areas like Dore and Totley, leaving the not so pleasant areas like Hyde Park for the plebs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 No it isn't and no it isn't. The matter has already been done to death on the BBC HYS boards. Well if the hys boards have spoken that's the matter closed. The money should be ploughed back into more affordable housing. That said if it is "frittered away" on care homes and libraries, that's fine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Well if the hys boards have spoken that's the matter closed. The money should be ploughed back into more affordable housing. That said if it is "frittered away" on care homes and libraries, that's fine too. Exactly, housing built on inner city brownfield sites would be a wise investment. Not only would people get more cheap housing, but derelict areas could/would be transformed into vibrant suburbs. There's enough brownfield sites around to avoid the issue of having to build new housing on existing housing estates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 won't we see the exact same thing as we had under the original RTB? People buying up the decent properties in the "upmarket" areas like Dore and Totley, leaving the not so pleasant areas like Hyde Park for the plebs? The entire proposal is to sell the valuable council housing in order to build more, so clearly (in this area) council housing in Dore would be amongst the more valuable, whereas in Hyde Park it wouldn't be put up for sale. What has to be avoided is that all the council housing in Dore is sold and not replaced, otherwise the allegations of social cleansing and ghetoisation are valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 And spent on one the services that the population used, it didn't take any housing away from the population, because it just increased the stock of affordable private houses, many of which are still occupied by the original tenant. No they're not! What is most likely to have happened is that the original tenant would have bought it at a knock down price and then after a certain period of time (not 100% sure now what the actual timescale is before you can re-sell) sold at a vast profit to buy another property. But this house is now privately owned. Whether another buyer then buys it as a "buy to let" property is a different matter but selling off Council housing certainly hasn't increased the stock of affordable housing - it's just increased the amount of housing available in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The entire proposal is to sell the valuable council housing in order to build more, so clearly (in this area) council housing in Dore would be amongst the more valuable, whereas in Hyde Park it wouldn't be put up for sale. What has to be avoided is that all the council housing in Dore is sold and not replaced, otherwise the allegations of social cleansing and ghetoisation are valid. the problem with that would still mean that the tenants in Places like Hyde Park would not have the mobility that they would have had pre RTB. Before RTB, if a family had a child with a disability, who, perhaps needed to be housed in an area with better air quality, say, or a specifically adapted property, they could access housing in Dore, Totley, or other suburban areas. With RTB, those areas have hardly anything coming up of that sort of housing, because the social housing there has been bought under RTB, or has people clamouring to get properties in that area in order to exercise their RTB in that more desirable area. the people in need of being moved aren't getting the chance to get moved as there's no social housing available to them. The other huge problem with RTB, as someone else mentioned in passing in an earlier post, is that the monies that were received from the sale of RTB poroperties was not permitted to be reinvested to provide decent social housing for those in need. (we have had members point to this very phenomenon elsewhere on the Forum, showing that the need for Social housing is far outstripping the supply/ availability.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The entire proposal is to sell the valuable council housing in order to build more, so clearly (in this area) council housing in Dore would be amongst the more valuable, whereas in Hyde Park it wouldn't be put up for sale. What has to be avoided is that all the council housing in Dore is sold and not replaced, otherwise the allegations of social cleansing and ghetoisation are valid. And not just replaced but replaced as affordable to rent property as per existing Council housing but this is what I fear will NOT happen. i feel that the same will happen as in the 80's when Council housing was sold off but not replaced by other cheap, affordable housing to rent! A lot of Council housing has been "sold off" to Housing Associations but I believe the the rent on Housing Association properties is more or less the same as the Council house rents but the "Buy to Let" housing is certainly NOT cheap housing. This is the property where rent costs need to be more regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.