MrSmith Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Bit unfair towards the middle of the road homeowners..can't afford the higher house prices in a "better" area and no chance of getting a council house there... Once an antisocial family moves into one of the rented houses the prices around them will soon drop and make them more affordable to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Yet, just to completely contradict myself you could take some villages with council and non council who get on fine. That said, I think most council housing in nicer villages was sold off before you could say location location location. From what I've seen/heard about this scheme, it doesn't appear to me that the councils will be selling off 'slightly better' houses in desirable villages. My understanding is that this sort of scheme was aimed at very expensive areas - like parts of London. Areas where a fairly modest house might fetch say, a million - or even 6 million! on the private market. If you could sell a council house in a high-priced district for £6 million, you could build quite a few 'affordable' houses ... particularly if you built them somewhere where house prices were at about the level of those in Sheffield. There are already plans to reduce housing benefit. Those reductions will, presumably, have the most marked effect on people living in private rented housing in very expensive areas. If those people are going to be forced to move, then somebody is going to have to find/build some housing fr them elsewhere. If councils in pricey areas could raise significant amounts of money by selling off high-priced housing, that would give them funds to build 'affordable' housing elsewhere. - Housing in which they could accommodate a large number of their tenants - and perhaps a large number of the people who were displaced because their housing benefit no longer covered their rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 From what I've seen/heard about this scheme, it doesn't appear to me that the councils will be selling off 'slightly better' houses in desirable villages. My understanding is that this sort of scheme was aimed at very expensive areas - like parts of London. Areas where a fairly modest house might fetch say, a million - or even 6 million! on the private market. If you could sell a council house in a high-priced district for £6 million, you could build quite a few 'affordable' houses ... particularly if you built them somewhere where house prices were at about the level of those in Sheffield. There are already plans to reduce housing benefit. Those reductions will, presumably, have the most marked effect on people living in private rented housing in very expensive areas. If those people are going to be forced to move, then somebody is going to have to find/build some housing fr them elsewhere. If councils in pricey areas could raise significant amounts of money by selling off high-priced housing, that would give them funds to build 'affordable' housing elsewhere. - Housing in which they could accommodate a large number of their tenants - and perhaps a large number of the people who were displaced because their housing benefit no longer covered their rent. Stratford, home of the Olympics was a desolate and run down area of East London. It was mainly working class. Since the development of the area, and improved transport links and The Channel Tunnel , house prices have shot up and the middle class have moved into this now trendy area. The area is affluent through no fault of the original tenants. So how long will it be before these council properties will be sold off. Where does this social cleansing and ghettoising of council tenants to less expensive areas stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Can't Rupert_Baehr answer for himself? He made the post:-Quote:] Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr Aren't ordinary house owners (those who buy their own houses) 'ghettoised'?. I've bought my house, therefore I'd like to know how Rupert_Baehr claims where I live has become 'ghettoised'? So I'd like his definition of 'Ghettoised'. I think you've probably missed his point, if the penny drops it'll be going really fast now so try not to let it hit you. He's talking about the fact that people buying privately are limited in choice to where they buy based on their budget. Unlike some lucky council house tenants who end up living somewhere they could never afford privately and more importantly a lot of working people could never afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 It would make more sense to outlaw buy to let. But allow for build to let. Hardly any of these desirable properties will be sold, people will wait for 5 years to get the 70% discount, then RTB. Then wait a further 5 year to sell. Based on what evidence? If tenants were in a position to buy these particularly valuable houses then this would already have happened, they don't need this new policy to enable it. On the other hand, whilst the housing market is slow, it's not dead, so if they're put on the market at a reasonable price then they will sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 But that is exactly what they do propose to do, hence the use of the word ghetto. That isn't the proposal, the proposal says "build new houses", it doesn't say "in the cheapest area possible". Council houses in wealthy areas will be sold off and the money used to build houses in cheaper areas. The council would never be able to afford to build property in these same wealthy areas. It could, building houses is cheaper than buying them, particularly if you're selling an 18 bedroomed victoria mansion and building a row of town houses. Like I said, it would need careful management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I think you've probably missed his point, if the penny drops it'll be going really fast now so try not to let it hit you. He's talking about the fact that people buying privately are limited in choice to where they buy based on their budget. Unlike some lucky council house tenants who end up living somewhere they could never afford privately and more importantly a lot of working people could never afford. So social discrimination then, people who don't have money should not live in areas where the wealthy live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 So social discrimination then, people who don't have money should not live in areas where the wealthy live. also not own helicopters, poor people shouldn't get subsidised housing that allows them to live in areas where the slightly better off can't afford to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 also not own helicopters, poor people shouldn't get subsidised housing that allows them to live in areas where the slightly better off can't afford to live. and again, so social discrimination then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 So social discrimination then, people who don't have money should not live in areas where the wealthy live. I'm not saying that, I'm just explaining what Rupert meant when he said that private home owners are ghettoised, in that they are limited by price as to where they can buy. That's just a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.