Dodger Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Sorry I didn't mention the GSXR but it's not what your thinking off...... I feel really guilty now that you actually are a GIXR widow and your husband was killed by one or something, straighten me out, tell me the truth! Fair enough not all landlords are fat cats and that was unfair but not all LGB renters are "potential druggies" or taking advantage. Agree, I think even that the vast majority of people in public accomodation are justified in being there, in fact it should really be everyones choice if they want to own or not, which is why I think the solution to both expensive private housing/rents and a lack of public housing for the needy is to simply build more public housing. It's not like it's a band investment for the government isn it? I'd far rather my pension fund owned property than bank shares right now. I'd love to own my own house, it will never happen and in the meantime every spare penny I get goes into my daughters savings account so she will have a better start than me.We have always had the girls who deliberatly get themselves pregnant to get a house and not all have come from eastates. I think that's spot on, many people who live in public houses would like to buy their own place and move out of the flats/estates, if they could afford it. AI, In general having money in housing for the pension fund is a good idea, which is why so many have a second or even a third home, rental income pays for the mortgage and the government helps by giving mortgage relief on all property. The problem with doing this with local authority housing would be that you couldn't sell the asset to realise the full market potential and that the rental doesn't cover all the costs, this is why the government covers the deficiencies. Your pension fund wouldn't be in a good shape afterwards, take the new hospital as an example......... For those who are able to afford it, they should be given the option of either staying in their home paying a realistic market rent or getting on the property ladder, if the difference was less then there would be a greater take up of the option. The issue has always been that it is someones home and not just rented property, therefore you can give them the choice. The increased rent would hopefully reduce the deficiency and help cover new builds for more local authority housing, or free up the house. A win win situation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 A little research on their website, shows that people cannot apply for a Douglas Borough house, for example, if their income (or joint income) is greater than £30,425 - so one of the main concerns people have is already being addressed in that people are being financially assessed properly before they can obtain public housing (the questions seem quite in depth and also extend into savings etc.). As for people already in social housing, I can't see any reason why the same questions can't be used periodically for reassessment. Such assessments could perhaps lead to variable rents across the estates e.g. for those that might not be able to leave (too old to get a mortgage etc.) but on higher wages, and with those with property elsewhere having to leave. However, in reality I suspect some of these reassessments would turn out to be complex, subjective and probably contentious IMO, and likely to lead to a backlog of appeals etc. Income assessment as 'the measure' is not so straightforward IMO, as people need social housing for a variety of reasons, some of which are poor health, low income, loss of income, divorce, debt, abusive parents/partners etc. I certainly like the idea of the government tieing social housing to more first time buyer developments, which I think would help tremendously, and if they could offer a savings type scheme as part of the rent, with a view to aiding people eventually moving out and into their own homes this would help solve a lot of problems and increase turnover IMO. Such a savings scheme would also generate new money toward actually building more first time buyer houses. In other words, instill into people moving into public housing the view that their current public housing is not necessarily a permanent solution (and is certainly not guaranteed for life), and that there is help and methods for them to progress. However, even then there will be people who would abuse the system if they were being regularly reassessed, perhaps such as partners choosing not to work, and in other ways adjust circumstances in favour of the reassessment - so things are by no means straightforward. A problem little mentioned though, is the current management of public housing. Once people are allocated housing, there seems to be few or no steps taken to ensure that once families have grown up and left home, and even later when one partner might have died - that people with two, three or even four bedroomed properties are not 'managed' into one/two bedroom properties, thus freeing up houses for families on the waiting list. Housing older people in smaller units would be a fairer and cheaper option to me, and it would be interesting to know just how many houses are occupied by such people. That said though, as part of that management some sort of fair scheme needs to be put together to aid those people who have spent money on their houses on decoration, carpets etc. e.g. perhaps 2 or 3 years notice before such a move - but I do think they should consider compulsory moves. Overall, I think the old model is failing and it's perhaps time that the the whole thing was re-evaluated to explore some of the options/alternatives. It is a very complex and subjective issue and needs detailed study. To me, public housing and first time buyer properties clearly need to be related even more closely in terms of government policy. However, the real 'Elephant in the room' in all of this is house prices, and until houses are seen as homes and not as investments, and kept in proportion to wage inflation, those at the bottom of the triangle will only continue to grow in number - and the animosity between those struggling to get/keep on the property ladder and those in social housing will only increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSXRwidow Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Albert, I do understand what you are saying, but why do you think that would be fair? If you have lived in a home since you were wed, brought your kids up then your partner dies, would you think it was fair for someone to say "alright chuck lets up and move you on now, here £200 for your carpets"? As my understanding is that people do move on, the older folks do want somewhere cheaper to heat and easier to run etc, but should they be forced? I really can't agree on that. I had a downstairs neighbour who was moved from her marrital home it broke her heart and within the year she was dead. She spent that time really unhappy, we used to hear her crying at night. noone every visited her because she had been tranferred to the first available flat which was in the south and all her freinds were in Douglas. Imo your have hit the nail on the head saying houses are homes not investments but then you take that away because it's a LGB home. or have I misunderstond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Good point - old people need special consideration not an inflexible unsympathetic application of a rule set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 There is no way people whose children have flown the nest should continue to be allowed to live in 3 or 4 bedroom houses just because their kids grew up there and they like it there. This is i social accommodation, and should be allocated on NEED, not on sentiment. There are many young families who have to struggle to pay private sector rents and their needs for 3 bedroom houses are greater than those of elderly couples with no dependents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSXRwidow Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I agree there are needy families who need housing but remember the houses are allocated on points and if they are that needy they will get their house. All I'm saying is older people shouldn't be forced to move from their homes. The government are building house at the moment aren't they? I may be wrong but are you on the waiting list, tugger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 As regards elderly couples with no dependents. Oh dear now I'm quoting myself One ex colleague in finance sector said they obtained a council house so they could spend their money building a 5 bedroomed house in Thailand I know someone who is joint owner of a company, owns at least 1 house worth £280k plus and has a car worth over £30,000. They earn a very high wage being in the position they are in, and the company pay most of the "expenses". Yet they can quite happily and unquestioned, live in a £60p/w house, and still make an aditional £800p/m renting their owned house I too know of a number of people living in council accomodation earning in excess of £80k... I know of a couple in local authority housing whose combined income is in the region of £80k per annum, I'd rather see the piss takers sorted first before picking on old people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSXRwidow Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I don't know anyone earning that much (LGB or not)! any chance of a loan for a new exhaust for my banger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 As far as it referes to people living in 'social housing' nor do I, it's just quotes from iomtoday online readers comments that I used in an earler post on this topic, I did say that they could be urban myth or man in the pub crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Dodger: why can't the government houses be sold to realise their value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Albert, I do understand what you are saying, but why do you think that would be fair? If you have lived in a home since you were wed, brought your kids up then your partner dies, would you think it was fair for someone to say "alright chuck lets up and move you on now, here £200 for your carpets"? As my understanding is that people do move on, the older folks do want somewhere cheaper to heat and easier to run etc, but should they be forced? I really can't agree on that. I had a downstairs neighbour who was moved from her marrital home it broke her heart and within the year she was dead. She spent that time really unhappy, we used to hear her crying at night. noone every visited her because she had been tranferred to the first available flat which was in the south and all her freinds were in Douglas. Imo your have hit the nail on the head saying houses are homes not investments but then you take that away because it's a LGB home. or have I misunderstond? No you haven't misunderstood. I too would argue that they should be allocated on need and not on sentiment, but do understand some of the problems that are indemic in the current system e.g. in terms of older people seeing the house as a house/home for life etc. This is another reason it is a very complex issue. However, I am sure that many oldies would rather move to something more manageable that costs less to heat given the chance - though clearly some wouldn't like to - but what's wrong with asking? Major changes to the system are required IMO, which may realistically take 20 years or more to achieve with associated first time buyer builds etc. but nevertheless change needs to happen, as the population is only likely to get bigger and these problems get worse. This is already happening in terms of the assessments that people have to go through when applying for a house. The ones who may be able to eventually afford their own places e.g. the 18 to 45 year olds bracket - are the older people of the future - who need to be educated NOW that these houses aren't always necessarily 'for life'. Though we should always remember that the basic principle of 'public housing' is to protect the old and/or weak and/or disadvantaged in the main. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Dodger: why can't the government houses be sold to realise their value? The reason is cost, as AI pointed out earlier, the high cost is land, the build is easier if you already own the land, to be able to sell off the property you would have to replace it. Unfortunately where would you if there is no available land in the area? Douglas for example, Peel as another? There are a lot of people on the waiting lists and if you sell a house you have to either reduce the portfolio or buy/build another and this can take a long time if you have to go to government for a new scheme. another point raised in this thread was 2 people in 3/4 bed houses, there is a shortage of single person and double accommodation. People will generally agree to downsize if there is a suitable property available. They are not going to want to move to a dingy flat from a nice home, that they have spent years looking after, would you want to start again after the children have left? There are some very good tenants that put their own money into the property, which they get no credit for if they are moved on. We need to provide suitable housing for those in need, this is a given. What people are concerned about is those who end up with a large income and don't want to move due to various reasons. The only way to do so would be to include an exit clause, linked into a home purchase scheme, based on income and/or personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 The reason is cost, as AI pointed out earlier, the high cost is land, the build is easier if you already own the land, to be able to sell off the property you would have to replace it. Unfortunately where would you if there is no available land in the area? Douglas for example, Peel as another? There are a lot of people on the waiting lists and if you sell a house you have to either reduce the portfolio or buy/build another and this can take a long time if you have to go to government for a new scheme. As was said earlier, if you sell them, you must build more. The government can obtain and release land for building cheap, or get them cheap through schemes with private developers as a portion of estates as has been discussed here too. There's loads of land, take a peek at Geurnsey, 65k population on 15 sq miles. We've got 378 sq miles, and what, 20k more people? Space isn't the issue, planning is. another point raised in this thread was 2 people in 3/4 bed houses, there is a shortage of single person and double accommodation. So build more! It really is that simple. We're not skint, it's a good investment of public funds, particularly if you go into aggressively selling the existing houses to those tennants who can afford to buy, build more! It's the best way in my view to free up houses, sell them and build more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 If you have lived in a home since you were wed, brought your kids up then your partner dies, would you think it was fair for someone to say "alright chuck lets up and move you on now, here £200 for your carpets"? Yes I think its fair to force them to downgrade. They are a tennant. They are not an owner. It is not their house, and they are one person taking up a house that a family could move in to. Give another family the chance to let their kids grow up in the same environment. Many elderly people in the private sector have to sell up and move down or into sheltered accomodation. It should be no different if you live in a council house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I had a downstairs neighbour who was moved from her marrital home it broke her heart and within the year she was dead. Hey, 2 properties freed up - result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.