Council/corporation House Rent

[sarahc]

It's a tricky one. If you have a community where only the poorest live, like Onchan Commissioners suggest then you end up with sink estates and slums, Chatsworth-Estate style. The stigma of having to live there often aids vandalism etc.

I still think near (not completely) market rents with discounts according to need is the way forward. This helps ensure a more varied mix of incomes.

[spock]

Amadeus - can you please post the response, on page 2 of the Examiner, from the un-elected Civil Servant Ricard Senior who believes he knows better than all the elected reprentatives and who says:-

"The department" has not been persuaded to recommend to Government...."

 

If "Government" (civil service)want to deal with social housing in this way then the Government should take on the whole responsibility for dealing with the allocation management and maintenance of the IOM's social housing stock - maybe that's the empire building dream of Richard Senior, the DLGE's Director of Estates - and then the rates could be adjusted accordingly and a Government Minister would then have to answer to the entire electorate about the funding of social housing from Income Tax.

[spock]

Agreed its tricky - but thats also the same when you have people living in subsidised social housing who can more than afford private sector housing costs and who effectively block the use of valuable and scarce resoureces provided by the ratepayers for those most in need. Surely the most needy deserve more than those that can actually afford to be somewhere else.

[manxman8180]

Unfortunately Richard Senior a DLGE civil servant thinks he knows better that the local commissioners......

 

Frankly, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

 

Shock horror - "Senior civil servant has greater knowledge than lay people elected on dog-shit manefesto"

 

Agreed its tricky

I think you'll find it's entirely logical

[Slim]

It's a tricky one. If you have a community where only the poorest live, like Onchan Commissioners suggest then you end up with sink estates and slums, Chatsworth-Estate style. The stigma of having to live there often aids vandalism etc.

I still think near (not completely) market rents with discounts according to need is the way forward. This helps ensure a more varied mix of incomes.

 

Problem is, who's going to be encourage to better their prospects if for every wage rise, you get a rent hike that takes it away?

[Freggyragh]

The civil servant supports social engineering to avoid 'sink estates' and I suppose there is something in what he says, especially when applied to large UK cities. He doesn't want government run ghettoes - he would prefer privatley rented ghettoes. The fact is, most of the needy people are simply needy, not social miscreants, vandals or permanently downwardly mobile. As it is, the new housing in Pulrose and Ramsey is not dingy - it is very nice. Social housing should be for the needy, not the anti-social. There should be some sort of check on those abusing the system.

[BigDave]

It's a tricky one. If you have a community where only the poorest live, like Onchan Commissioners suggest then you end up with sink estates and slums, Chatsworth-Estate style. The stigma of having to live there often aids vandalism etc.

I still think near (not completely) market rents with discounts according to need is the way forward. This helps ensure a more varied mix of incomes.

Developers, along with the requirement to include first time buyer properties on their new sites are also encouraged (required maybe?) to build new public sector housing as well, providing a mix of open market, government first time buyer and public sector housing in the same estate, which as old public sector stock is replenished should resolve this issue nicely.

[bluemonday]

Slightly aside to the main issue but regarding

The civil servant supports social engineering to avoid 'sink estates' and I suppose there is something in what he says, especially when applied to large UK cities. He doesn't want government run ghettoes - he would prefer privatley rented ghettoes

Not only large cities, I've seen some right sh*tholes across in small places. One in particular had over 50% benefit dependancy. Regarding private renting, they were part of the cause. Given the chance to make money due to lack of public housing provision they went for it big time. Didn't give a toss what sort they housed because they were guaranteed the DHSS would be paying - and they also hiked the prices up accordingly. And the crime rates etc followed.

 

If IOM Gov/corpy/comms etc expects the private rentals sector to substitute for it in providing housing then it needs to closely monitor who is getting paid what and how much and it certainly needs to get more involved in the quality of the accomodation provided. Yes there are good private landlords but there's also some very bad ones.

I've seen some right pig styes.

And some rental levels are pure greed driven nonsense - look in the papers and see the familiar numbers every week - no takers..........

 

As for

Developers, along with the requirement to include first time buyer properties on their new sites are also encouraged (required maybe?) to build new public sector housing as well, providing a mix of open market, government first time buyer and public sector housing in the same estate, which as old public sector stock is replenished should resolve this issue nicely

Agreed, also right to buy for long term tenants might also raise the money available for new projects.

As for drastic changes, should be a last resort not a first. By all means debate a maximum income level for new tenants but making it retrospective for what is their own failing to anticipate doesn't really grab me.

Edit to add.

Not everyone is a big wig in the financial sector, the small everyday workers and earners need to be properly looked after and have decent living conditions. It's how the less fortunate are treated that indicates the state of a society.

[Sharp]

If a person was to spend say £240000-00 buying a three bedroom house as an investment and then let it on the private market should that person not expect a good return for his money. If he left his money in the bank he would expect to earn at least £12000.00 pa in interest, so whats wrong with asking for £1000.00 pm in rent.

[ai_Droid]

If a person was to spend say £240000-00 buying a three bedroom house as an investment and then let it on the private market should that person not expect a good return for his money. If he left his money in the bank he would expect to earn at least £12000.00 pa in interest, so whats wrong with asking for £1000.00 pm in rent.

 

Particularly as you have to pay 18% tax on the rent, and there are expenses also. Rents are definately out of touch with property prices currently, which is why the buy to let market has dissapeared.

 

Your example above doesn't take into account inflation in the value of the property, though that's apparently flat to negative at the moment anyway.

[bluemonday]

Before the other factors are put in thats 5% return - crap. I'd expect to make at least twice that on 240k as a minimum

Rents are definately out of touch with property prices currently, which is why the buy to let market has dissapeared.

Yep 100% agree, the bubble has burst well and truly.

[Lonan3]

Superfluum quod tenes tu furaris. [st Ambrose]

[Sharp]

How many Ltd Companies are run from Government or Corpy houses, having a quick look through yellow pages I spotted quite a few, some decent size ones to.

[Amadeus]

Superfluum quod tenes tu furaris. [st Ambrose]

I ain't nicked nuffin, you anarchist!

[Albert Tatlock]

Superfluum quod tenes tu furaris. [st Ambrose]

Though if only people would join the dots...and see the solution to this thread.