chem1st Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/march_2013/sharp_rise_in_number_of_homeless_families Government figures released today show a sharp increase in the number of homeless families over the past year. In 2012, 34,080 households with children were accepted as homeless, an increase of 12% on the previous year. At the end of 2012, 76,790 children were living in temporary accommodation, an annual increase of 11% Homelessness continues to rise. Building remains low. Demand for housing continues to exceed supply. Due to a lack of housing to meet demand, housing costs are forced upwards, and the poorest are no longer able to access housing. This is brilliant news for homeowners, but bad news for the poor. Increasing amounts of children, along with adults are being made homeless. NIMBYs oppose new housing development, they often oppose it because they fear it could reduce housing prices and rents and in turn lead to people being able to access housing. This would substantially reduce the price of their property. Increasing amounts of homelessness show that NIMBYs are winning the war. With a lack of housing, they can command a premium for their properties. So whilst increasing amounts of British children are having a terrible time, having their lives and future prospects ruined, it isn't all bad news. For some wealthy homeowners are financially better off. These people might already be rich, but now they are even richer. They have nothing extra to show for it, but they can brag about their house and it's new higher worth. The recent budget offered nothing to the poor, it will not reduce child homelessness. It did however offer a big subsidy to home-owners. The government is going to guarantee mortgages and push house prices even higher. So whilst young children are made homeless, old people who could access affordable housing in their youth, can rejoice, that such housing will now increase in value further. And let's face it, homeless children don't vote, whilst old homeowners do. And whilst I personally despise NIMBY homeowners who having managed to secure a roof over their head, now actively campaign to stop others being able to do so. I must acknowledge that they are winning the battle. Well done NIMBYs! You are winning! Pat yourselves on the back! Sorry homeless children, you are losing! Unfortunately the state does not deem you to be of value. Increasing house prices is a greater priority. This is the UK, and you were not born into property wealth, your life chances are poor and your future is bleak, you have my sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I thought it was because the banks aren't lending ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I thought it was because the banks aren't lending ? Or perhaps house prices should be allowed to fall to a level that is affordable based on what people can now borrow. Rather than loading people up with massive debt. Mortgages: Millions 'Struggle With Payments' And that's with interest rates at 300 year lows. The period 1997-2007 was a period of abnormally cheap and easy credit. It nearly caused the global economy to collapse. This is not something we should be trying to get back to. Houses will become more affordable if their prices are allowed to fall. However, with interest rates at multi-century lows and endless cockeyed government schemes to keep prices high (that time serving oaf Osborne unveiled two fresh recipes for disaster in his recent budget), there seems no prospect of that. The elephant in the room is that house prices are just too expensive. Up until 2007 when all that was required was that you could fog a mirror and you'd get a 125% mortgage (whatever did happen to Northern Rock?) people could "afford" those prices by pledging themselves to decades of debt servitude. Mortgage that's a 40-year millstone [20 Feb 2007] But if anyone cares to check a calendar they will see that it's no longer 2007 (and thank Christ for that, otherwise we'd have Gordon Brown still steering us to disaster). This is the space year 2013 and people just can't afford these ridiculous prices any more (if they ever really could). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 The problem is that whilst many people can’t afford an house because they are to expensive, many people that were sucked in by Gordon’s promise of “no more boom and bust” can’t afford for interest rates to rise. How to help one group without bankrupting the other group is the challenge, my guess is government are looking for house price stagnation, they need to get builders building by making it easier for first time buyers to buy new build properties, but they have to do this without encouraging house price inflation. ---------- Post added 30-03-2013 at 07:36 ---------- chem1st This one should put a smile on your face. Devon tenant Brian Kiddell sells landlord's home online for £90,000. He now resides in one Her Majesties sheltered accommodation blocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Not seen any homeless kids in the park or round the salvation army! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Not seen any homeless kids in the park or round the salvation army! That's because, contrary to chemist's alarmist claims, the "state" does care about them. The "state", that is you and I and our money, DOES find and often pay for accommodation for these that are "accepted as homeless". The numbers of accepted homeless has risen. The numbers of those taken out of homelessness has also risen. Yes there is still a net increase, but the percentage improvement should not be ignored. i.e. the 'state' is trying harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 That's because, contrary to chemist's alarmist claims, the "state" does care about them. The "state", that is you and I and our money, DOES find and often pay for accommodation for these that are "accepted as homeless". The numbers of accepted homeless has risen. The numbers of those taken out of homelessness has also risen. Yes there is still a net increase, but the percentage improvement should not be ignored. i.e. the 'state' is trying harder. Putting people up in emergency accommodation at vast expense does not solve the problem of a lack of affordable housing. Much like giving farmers in wealthy countries money, does not solves hunger amongst the poor in poor countries. Say my neighbour didn't have an electric kettle to boil water for a cup of tea. His problem would be a lack of kettle. Such a problem could be solved by getting him a fiver kettle. You would not solve the problem, by paying me £1 a go to use my kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Putting people up in emergency accommodation at vast expense does not solve the problem of a lack of affordable housing. ...... There is a limit to what is affordable. Ultimately that, to many, will mean "free". Many of the "accepted homeless" in the statistics are such because they cannot afford to pay the rent for accommodation that is available ... some of which is "affordable". I am not arguing against the point that more housing is needed ... I am suggesting that "homeless" statistics in isolation, do not necessarily make a good argument for the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Too many people are having children that they cannot afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 When in history have we ever had so many single adults occupying a house? How many kids have two homes as a consequence? How many people are working away from home, so have two homes too? No wonder we have a housing crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.