Mass Homelessness Soon?

[nightrider]

1 hour ago, tzijlstra said:

The simple fact is: There are affordable properties (for sale) - they are just not necessarily where people 'want to live'. You can buy a two-up, two-down in Goldthorpe for around 50k (mortgage of around £200 a month... try and rent for that) and be in the city in  under 40 minutes by train. 

 

So what is required is that local/regional governments work hard to make these 'undesirable areas' more interesting for people to live. Start investing in local amenities, transport links and employment opportunities, that is what will unlock the housing market, not just continuing to build in desirable areas for inflated prices.

 

Just to pre-empt the question: Yes, I would live in Goldthorpe or other 'downtrodden' places if my budget asked that of me. If I made 14k a year? I'd rather start on the property ladder in a 50k property than throw £500 (that I can't miss!) at a rental property.

 

This is what a lot of people used to do back in the 70's/80's. Seems to be out of fashion nowadays though.

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

The simple fact is: There are affordable properties (for sale) - they are just not necessarily where people 'want to live'. You can buy a two-up, two-down in Goldthorpe for around 50k (mortgage of around £200 a month... try and rent for that) and be in the city in  under 40 minutes by train. 

 

So what is required is that local/regional governments work hard to make these 'undesirable areas' more interesting for people to live. Start investing in local amenities, transport links and employment opportunities, that is what will unlock the housing market, not just continuing to build in desirable areas for inflated prices.

 

Just to pre-empt the question: Yes, I would live in Goldthorpe or other 'downtrodden' places if my budget asked that of me. If I made 14k a year? I'd rather start on the property ladder in a 50k property than throw £500 (that I can't miss!) at a rental property.

 

 

34 minutes ago, nightrider said:

This is what a lot of people used to do back in the 70's/80's. Seems to be out of fashion nowadays though.

I don't think it's out of fashion so much as not always feasable. Can a person on a 0 hours contract get a mortgage? (genuine question.) Even on £14,000 I'm not sure mortgage companies would be keen. I don't think it's snobbery that makes people think twice about bad areas, but crime, drugs, poor schools, horrendous neighbours with mental health issues. etc. I don't think these problems were  rife in the 70s/80s. And I do know that most people in these areas are fine, but it's a bit of a lottery. If I had young children, particularly boys I'd be concerned.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Anna B

[Anna B]

On 30/10/2020 at 11:16, Robin-H said:

Recent news re efforts to tackle homelessness. 
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-allocated-for-3-300-new-homes-for-rough-sleepers
 

“More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers and other vulnerable people have been approved, the Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick MP has announced today (29 October 2020).

 

Backed by government investment of more than £150 million the new homes will be made available in every region of England. This will enable people who sleep rough, or at risk of sleeping rough, to be rehoused in secure, long-term accommodation, providing some of the most vulnerable in society with a permanent place to live and help to rebuild their lives.” 

This is good news, but they'd better get a move on. I shall follow it's progress with interest

Trouble is this is just an announcement of intent, and with the Tories, what they promise and what they do are two different things....

[nightrider]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

 

I don't think it's out of fashion so much as not always feasable. Can a person on a 0 hours contract get a mortgage? (genuine question.) Even on £14,000 I'm not sure mortgage companies would be keen. I don't think it's snobbery that makes people think twice about bad areas, but crime, drugs, poor schools, horrendous neighbours with mental health issues. etc. I don't think these problems were  rife in the 70s/80s. And I do know that most people in these areas are fine, but it's a bit of a lottery. If I had young children, particularly boys I'd be concerned.

 

 

People in low income jobs have never been able to get mortgages have they? Home ownership has never been above 73% in the UK. I can remember riots and all sorts in the 80's, not convinced these sorts of areas have ever been nice places to live.

 

 

[Anna B]

My first house was a tatty terrace, which we did up slowly, and I loved it. Smashing, friendly neighbours too. But society wasn't so divided back in the 70's as it is now, and people could get on if we wanted to. We had prospects. Not sure that's true any more.

3 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

The simple fact is: There are affordable properties (for sale) - they are just not necessarily where people 'want to live'. You can buy a two-up, two-down in Goldthorpe for around 50k (mortgage of around £200 a month... try and rent for that) and be in the city in  under 40 minutes by train. 

 

So what is required is that local/regional governments work hard to make these 'undesirable areas' more interesting for people to live. Start investing in local amenities, transport links and employment opportunities, that is what will unlock the housing market, not just continuing to build in desirable areas for inflated prices.

 

Just to pre-empt the question: Yes, I would live in Goldthorpe or other 'downtrodden' places if my budget asked that of me. If I made 14k a year? I'd rather start on the property ladder in a 50k property than throw £500 (that I can't miss!) at a rental property.

 

If you can't get a mortgage, and many people can't, you're confined to renting from a private landlord.

He'll buy a house like the one you mention, tarte it up a bit, then rent it out for £400+ a month.

As far as I'm aware, a single person can only get enough on Universal Credit to cover the rent on one room in house.

[tzijlstra]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

 

I don't think it's out of fashion so much as not always feasable. Can a person on a 0 hours contract get a mortgage? (genuine question.) Even on £14,000 I'm not sure mortgage companies would be keen. I don't think it's snobbery that makes people think twice about bad areas, but crime, drugs, poor schools, horrendous neighbours with mental health issues. etc. I don't think these problems were  rife in the 70s/80s. And I do know that most people in these areas are fine, but it's a bit of a lottery. If I had young children, particularly boys I'd be concerned.

 

 

Even if you can't get a mortgage, you can rent there for under £400, still a lot less than most places in Sheffield. Also, 14k is half the median income for salaried folks in Sheffield.

 

I have to take affront to the idea that crime, drugs, poor schools and mental health issues didn't exist in the seventies/eighties though. In fact, I'd say that is typical of this day and age: Because we talk about it more using 't interweb, we see it more. But I sure as hell had to run for my life when the local drug dealer didn't like I walked in on his deal in the 80s and I've lived through and seen the poor schools, crime and mental health issues. 

 

The only way to escape that life, for me, was to work hard and gain qualifications so I could climb up the ladder. We can debate whether that ladder is right or not, but not whether it is possible to climb it, because it is, for everybody.  

[Westie1889]

Affordable housing is a fallacy, it means a cheaper house on a more expensive overall development but doesn’t mean it’s affordable.

Only housing associations offer anything like affordable housing.

I know  someone locally whose son bought 50% ownership on a 2 bed apartment in South London on the government scheme, that 50% share cost him £500k! 
I’m a businessman and all for private enterprise but the housing market is one giant monopoly between the developers and banks. 
The fewer properties they build the higher their margins and profits the following years, as a lack of supply drives up the value on land, properties and mortgages on those properties.

Nothing other than government intervention through building or financing the building of homes will sort the issue.

The market is broken and doesn’t operate as a true market. 
It’s also true that people’s aspirations are very different,  young people often have higher standards of where they want to live but lack the funds to make that happen and Goldthorpe isn’t going to cut it for many of them so they would prefer to rent in the city centre for the lifestyle it offers.

Like many people I don’t  get why successive governments don’t spend hugely on housing as it would guarantee them election wins as the council house sales did Thatcher.

The Treasury could even make money as it can borrow at a lower rate than the banks so could fund this and profit, unfortunately they are too entrenched in promoting the London based service economy (banking) and GDP growth rather than focusing on doing something worthwhile socially that also makes money for the country.
 

 

 

 

[Robin-H]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

 

I don't think it's out of fashion so much as not always feasable. Can a person on a 0 hours contract get a mortgage? (genuine question.) Even on £14,000 I'm not sure mortgage companies would be keen. I don't think it's snobbery that makes people think twice about bad areas, but crime, drugs, poor schools, horrendous neighbours with mental health issues. etc. I don't think these problems were  rife in the 70s/80s. And I do know that most people in these areas are fine, but it's a bit of a lottery. If I had young children, particularly boys I'd be concerned.

 

 

Yes, they can. 

 

 https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-7443091/HSBC-makes-easier-mortgage-zero-hours-contract-bank-relaxes-application-rules.html

 

And you don't think crime, drugs, poor schools, or horrendous neighbours were problems in the 70s/80s!!?

[Longcol]

5 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

And you don't think crime, drugs, poor schools, or horrendous neighbours were problems in the 70s/80s!!?

In my experience, nothing like as prevalent as today - certainly not until the latter half of the 80's until the effects of mass unemployment kicked in.

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

In my experience, nothing like as prevalent as today - certainly not until the latter half of the 80's until the effects of mass unemployment kicked in.

The 60s were filled with gang activities, attacks and knife crime. In fact I remember reading one newspaper article which stated that more people carried a knife in 60s than do on the streets today. The 70s were filled with a range of racism, homophobia, civil disobedience and other hate crimes. Football hooliganism was rampant as was drug use and the beginnings of substance abuse which led into the 80s.

 

Same as always with these discussions some people go all nostalgic for the so-called "good old days" and get stuck in that rose tinted blindness.

 

If we really want to be talking about the big difference between then and now,  Its that now a crime takes place and within seconds we all hear about it thanks to the wonder of social media.... with of course the caveat that reporting of it is accompanied with a load of gossip, rumour, speculation, opinion, exaggeration, scaremongering and falsehoods which is all amplified further by the time it hits the TV news and papers.

 

Back on the subject at hand, Irrelevant or whether it's 1960 or 2020 the same principle applies.  There will be good and bad people in every area. There will always be the popular areas which fuel house prices against less popular areas which are cheaper. There will always be those who have a big house fully paid vs those who have a small flat which they rent.

 

Despite the fantasies brought up by some people on this forum - we never have and never will have a fully equal society where everyone has the same.  Life does not work like that.  

 

Unless you are one of the very privileged whom get inherited property, we all have to start somewhere.

 

I started in a tiny flat as a rental and then scrimped and saved my way up to buy my first old knackered terraced  house. That was then followed by move into a bigger house closer to the city as I developed my career.

 

50 years earlier my parents did exactly the same thing.... they started off in a rented terraced in area they didn't particularly like and as and when they could and the money allowed they took the risk to move up the ladder. As with so many other people it wasn't always good times. They nearly destituted themselves trying to survive the housing crash and the huge interest rates that shot up, they had to downsize at one point before eventually managing to get back to where they wanted to be.

 

Nobody said it's easy.

Edited November 3, 2020 by ECCOnoob