One Million Council Houses per year.

[danny12]

Whats the point when a stupid right to buy policy means that as soon as a council house is built it is sold of to a private buyer. If more house are needed then private builders should build them not council tax payers. If the council should build them then the right to buy policy should be killed.

 

They can't be sold for less than their build cost and then only to tenants that have lived in them for five years.

[El Cid]

They can't be sold for less than their build cost and then only to tenants that have lived in them for five years.

 

Its changed for council houses, its 3 years

[danny12]

Its changed for council houses, its 3 years

 

OK thanks.

[apelike]

Its changed for council houses, its 3 years

 

The new legislation states 5 years.

 

If it is sold before 10 years it must also be offered first to the original landlord or another social landlord.

 

If it is sold before 5 years then a portion of the discount must be paid back depending on how long it has been owned.

[El Cid]

The new legislation states 5 years.

 

 

That must be the rules just brought in for housing association houses, council houses are 3 years.

[apelike]

That must be the rules just brought in for housing association houses, council houses are 3 years.

 

Not according to this;

 

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/overview

[El Cid]

Not according to this;

 

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/overview

 

I got a letter saying that it was now 3 years, as I have lived in my council house for 18 months.

 

you’ve had a public sector landlord (eg a council, housing association or NHS trust) for 3 years - it doesn’t have to be 3 years in a row

[apelike]

I got a letter saying that it was now 3 years, as I have lived in my council house for 18 months.

 

My apologies as I had misread the post by danny12 and thought he meant selling. I should have gone to specsavers!

But yes that is true with buying the property not selling it.

[chem1st]

The op still hasn't answered why we need 1 million houses per year...hit and run

 

There is a serious misallocation of housing in this country, resulting in a widespread lack of affordable housing for the common man, many are in substandard, inadequate housing, and living in overcrowded properties, some are even homeless, it is commonly known as the "HOUSING CRISIS", people have been talking about it for years, and warning about it for years before it started to become the significant problem affecting many millions of people that it is now.

 

We had a housing crisis a decade ago, but because it only affected a a relatively small amount of marginalised people, the young, immigrants, the poor etc., many did not even recognise or acknowledge there was a problem.

 

Over the past decade there have been significant changes in the country, household formation has increased, the population has increased, housing inequalities have increased massively, and the distribution of housing has become much more unequal, at a time when the GIFA per person has declined at a rate of 1 square metre per year.

 

Each year an ever increasing amount of people are chasing an ever decreasing amount of housing that becomes available for occupation, at a time when an ever increasing amount of credit and money has been artificially manipulated in way so that it is forced into housing, and now housing has become a financial tool, used by a few, to exploit the many, with ease.

 

There are a few ways the crisis could be tackled. Forced redistribution is one way, but forced redistribution of housing is impractical, unnecessary and highly unlikely to happen as it would be political suicide. Also forced redistribution wouldn't entirely solve the problem as the amount of housing per person has decreased and continues to decrease, thus there would have to be continual forced redistribution to take account of the decrease in the amount of housing per person.

 

The other main way is to build. This is the best way, as it is practical, necessary (to meet the demand of increased population to ensure the amount of housing per person remains constant or increases) and politically popular (disregarding NIMBY's - who by and large accept the need for more housing nationally, but sometimes object to it being near them when it is suggested locally).

 

Because of the severe shortage that has built up over the years, it is necessary to build in larger numbers for a short period in order to tackle the pent up demand ASAP. If we were building 400k units per year over the past decade, we wouldn't have a problem, but we didn't and we do, and thus we need to build a lot for a a few years, to solve the housing problems we now have.

[unbeliever]

There is a serious misallocation of housing in this country, resulting in a widespread lack of affordable housing for the common man, many are in substandard, inadequate housing, and living in overcrowded properties, some are even homeless, it is commonly known as the "HOUSING CRISIS", people have been talking about it for years, and warning about it for years before it started to become the significant problem affecting many millions of people that it is now.

 

We had a housing crisis a decade ago, but because it only affected a a relatively small amount of marginalised people, the young, immigrants, the poor etc., many did not even recognise or acknowledge there was a problem.

 

Over the past decade there have been significant changes in the country, household formation has increased, the population has increased, housing inequalities have increased massively, and the distribution of housing has become much more unequal, at a time when the GIFA per person has declined at a rate of 1 square metre per year.

 

Each year an ever increasing amount of people are chasing an ever decreasing amount of housing that becomes available for occupation, at a time when an ever increasing amount of credit and money has been artificially manipulated in way so that it is forced into housing, and now housing has become a financial tool, used by a few, to exploit the many, with ease.

 

There are a few ways the crisis could be tackled. Forced redistribution is one way, but forced redistribution of housing is impractical, unnecessary and highly unlikely to happen as it would be political suicide. Also forced redistribution wouldn't entirely solve the problem as the amount of housing per person has decreased and continues to decrease, thus there would have to be continual forced redistribution to take account of the decrease in the amount of housing per person.

 

The other main way is to build. This is the best way, as it is practical, necessary (to meet the demand of increased population to ensure the amount of housing per person remains constant or increases) and politically popular (disregarding NIMBY's - who by and large accept the need for more housing nationally, but sometimes object to it being near them when it is suggested locally).

 

Because of the severe shortage that has built up over the years, it is necessary to build in larger numbers for a short period in order to tackle the pent up demand ASAP. If we were building 400k units per year over the past decade, we wouldn't have a problem, but we didn't and we do, and thus we need to build a lot for a a few years, to solve the housing problems we now have.

 

Okay. Why does the state have to do it?