vinyl 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. .. They said no such thing. I'd love you to find a link to anything that says they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. Last time I checked the most affordable private houses are ex- council houses and many new buyers can only afford ex -council houses because they are more affordable than new build houses, if they wasn’t for sale on the open market there would be many more people sat on the council waiting list unable to afford to buy a house. The council just knocked down an estate of over hundred houses 70% were still council houses the remainder were owned by the people that bought them from the council. The council bought them back and demolished them. They could have sold them all at an affordable price instead of wasting millions buying them back and demolishing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. I suspect they wouldn't build social housing on brownfill or greenbelt because the price is so much. The land would probably be sold to private investors and the social housing would be built in areas with already heavily populated social housing and most probably on school playing fields. A real postcode lottery to life. And not only that, coupled with the new housing benefit rules for council tenants just confirms the move in social engineering, not to mention the fact that there are some 700,000 vacant properties in the UK. Even tory MPs don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The council just knocked down an estate of over hundred houses 70% were still council houses the remainder were owned by the people that bought them from the council. The council bought them back and demolished them. They could have sold them all at an affordable price instead of wasting millions buying them back and demolishing them. What happened to the land after the houses had been demolished? Were more houses built for social housing or was the land sold off to private developers? Or has the land just been left with nothing actually happening with it or as it, has as happened in some areas, now been turned into a car park? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Since 1980, just under 2 million council homes have been sold in England, 344,000 council homes have been built and Housing associations built 450,000 new houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Since 1980, just under 2 million council homes have been sold in England, 344,000 council homes have been built and Housing associations built 450,000 new houses. So far more have been sold off then actually replaced then? No wonder there's such a housing problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos 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.. Yes but the implication is that richer areas (eg Surrey) can effectively decant their poorer residents to areas such as Sheffield,rendering the latter a second class area,and further promoting Surrey now free of all those poorer types.You need to read both the lines and the and the space between them.I say this as you appeared to scold poppet for exhibiting superficiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 What happened to the land after the houses had been demolished? Were more houses built for social housing or was the land sold off to private developers? Or has the land just been left with nothing actually happening with it or as it, has as happened in some areas, now been turned into a car park? It’s used to grow weeds although the council do waste money cutting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 So far more have been sold off then actually replaced then? No wonder there's such a housing problem! Yes more sold than built but I would think an increase in England’s population by 3.5 million people over the past ten years has played the biggest part in causing a housing problem. The houses aren’t sat empty and many of the owners may well have been sat on the council waiting list had it not been for the fact that could afford to buy an ex council house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. I agree. I understand why lots of people bought via RTB, but I'm against it in principle. Selling one council house at a discount won't fund the building of another one even if councils had ever had the money (which they didn't). In some parts of the country, such as some of the more upmarket London Boroughs, social housing sold via RTB has been sold on and is now rented out at a cost that is unaffordable to ordinary people. Private landlords are making a killing out of these properties that were originally paid for out of everyone's taxes. Some council housing initially sold via RTB even here in Sheffield is no longer cheap housing. Just look at this for instance: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31467556.html?premiumA=true Or this: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35022499.html?premiumA=true If those properties hadn't been sold (at a discount), then many of the better off tenants might have bought on the open market, just like most of us. That would have at least left a bit more social housing for rent. I would never advocate selling off council housing just because it happens to be in a nice area. I would however support the sale of large expensive individual properties that could fund the building of several new homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.