Council tenants subsidising property owners.

[poppet2]

And that was all down to council tennants?

 

Read Chem's post 66.

[Cyclone]

So areas that were run-down and neglected were improved and somehow this is a bad thing?

[discodown]

Chem is correct.

A typical example of this is when run-down areas suddenly become yuppified which was the situation across many parts of East London with the re-development of the Isle of Dogs and the Docklands as a result of the introduction of improved transport infrastructure etc.

The homeowners never asked for this, however banks and big corporate companies moved in and prices increased in areas that were once run-down and neglected. All seemed fine, until the elderly discovered their children could no longer afford to live in the areas they were brought up in.

So investment and redevelopment is a bad thing?

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 19:20 ----------

 

Much of the money derived from council rents is diverted to spending on public infrastructure. This money then finds it way into property and increases property prices.

 

Because council tenants are paying over the odds for their accommodation, they are funding pubic infrastructure and services which in turn increases house prices.

 

House prices increase not because houses are improved, but because of the money spent in the community. This unearned increase in houseprices is created by the community, but it is pocketed by private property owners.

 

Thus council tenants are subsidising property owners.

Rubbish.

 

An increase in base value is not a subsidy. Regardless of how that increase in value comes about you can't ever reasonably call it a subsidy. What about house prices in an area where there is no infrastructure investment? What if they rise?

 

How do you explain the rise in the price of rare objects and art and classic cars and things like that? Are they subsidies? If it applies to houses then it applies to other things as well. Memorabilia and collectables and so on gain value over time, would you say they were subsidised? Of course not, the idea is preposterous. A gain in value is simply that, a gain in value.

 

Besides which until recently council tenants were paying artificially low rents, that was the bonus of having council accommodation.

 

You're also going to have to come up with some solid proof to back up your assertions where the rent money goes before you can say it home owners are benefiting from people paying council rent.

[Cyclone]

I'd be quite surprised if council rent actually generated any profit at all when the books are balanced.

[I1L2T3]

So investment and redevelopment is a bad thing?

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 19:20 ----------

 

Rubbish.

 

An increase in base value is not a subsidy. Regardless of how that increase in value comes about you can't ever reasonably call it a subsidy. What about house prices in an area where there is no infrastructure investment? What if they rise?

 

How do you explain the rise in the price of rare objects and art and classic cars and things like that? Are they subsidies? If it applies to houses then it applies to other things as well. Memorabilia and collectables and so on gain value over time, would you say they were subsidised? Of course not, the idea is preposterous. A gain in value is simply that, a gain in value.

 

Besides which until recently council tenants were paying artificially low rents, that was the bonus of having council accommodation.

 

You're also going to have to come up with some solid proof to back up your assertions where the rent money goes before you can say it home owners are benefiting from people paying council rent.

 

A rise in value in an asset class that is the focus of a bubble is not a true rise in value.

[Ms Macbeth]

I'd be quite surprised if council rent actually generated any profit at all when the books are balanced.

 

The reality is that council rents have, for a very long time paid solely for the management of council housing. That includes repairs and maintenance; ensuring tenants pay rent/claim the right benefits; dealing with anti-social behaviour on council estates; supporting tenants to have their say about the services they get. Any subsidy wasn't to other tenures, but was across councils, with all money collected going into a central pot and being redistributed. From a government website (link below) 'In April 2012 we ended the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system. This means councils can now keep their rental income and use it to fund their housing stock (called ‘self-financing’).'

 

The last government introduced the Decent Homes scheme, where from 2011 'to help local councils with the worst housing, this government provided £1.6 billion to the Decent Homes programme.' That money was from all taxpayers, not from council rents.

 

Some more money being sent to councils by government (not from rents) 'We’re spending up to £2 million every year between 2011 and 2015 on the tenant empowerment programme'

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-the-rented-housing-sector--2/supporting-pages/social-housing-reform

 

Council tenants have dedicated staff who deal with disputes between neighbours; tenants receive free training; they often have the free use of community buildings for residents' associations along with paid staff to help organise meetings etc.

 

I don't see how council tenants subsidise home owners.

[Sid Umpley]

my tennants just became unemployed. so from next month their rent will be paid for by the benefits system.

 

they where very happy with the rent i charged them when they where working, but as i am now a parasite sucking on the teat of the "system" should i drop their rent to less?

[Cyclone]

The reality is that council rents have, for a very long time paid solely for the management of council housing. That includes repairs and maintenance; ensuring tenants pay rent/claim the right benefits; dealing with anti-social behaviour on council estates; supporting tenants to have their say about the services they get. Any subsidy wasn't to other tenures, but was across councils, with all money collected going into a central pot and being redistributed. From a government website (link below) 'In April 2012 we ended the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system. This means councils can now keep their rental income and use it to fund their housing stock (called ‘self-financing’).'

 

The last government introduced the Decent Homes scheme, where from 2011 'to help local councils with the worst housing, this government provided £1.6 billion to the Decent Homes programme.' That money was from all taxpayers, not from council rents.

 

Some more money being sent to councils by government (not from rents) 'We’re spending up to £2 million every year between 2011 and 2015 on the tenant empowerment programme'

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-the-rented-housing-sector--2/supporting-pages/social-housing-reform

 

Council tenants have dedicated staff who deal with disputes between neighbours; tenants receive free training; they often have the free use of community buildings for residents' associations along with paid staff to help organise meetings etc.

 

I don't see how council tenants subsidise home owners.

 

So what Chem1st is asserting is demonstrably untrue.

[lipschitz]

Blah, blah, blah!!! Prices of things rise year on year....basic food items, booze, cigs, fuel and houses. I still don't see how you can single out private home owners and say that they are subsidised by council tenants and rents. And yet I still don't get any help with my mortgage!

[truman]

Read Chem's post 66.

 

Still don't see how council tenants are subsidising property owners...