bluemonday Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I'm going to mug up on my Latin before I get in a certain taxi.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 It has taken a while to read all these posts, but here goes. I am a Commissioner at a housing authority, you are entitled to request from one of your elected representative to research your case. It is called case work and is covered under data protection which all commissioners are required to have, if storing data electronically. I have done so for 2 people and have found that their circumstances had changed and that they had not got their full entitlement of points, this is not the same as getting someone a house. It is points only, you do have to get to the top of the list before allocation! Here is the link to the formula for working out your points:- http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/dlge/housing/pu...criteriafor.pdf This next link will show size of waiting lists by area for local authority housing and also first time buyers. I hope the information helps. http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/dlge/housing/ho...iewjuly2007.pdf My stance personally is on my website and here was my housing policy, I stood for Peel at the last general election. Housing We need to ensure that the whole Island has sustainable, affordable, housing so that not all the land in any given area is developed at the same time. I would like to see the Government strategy change from having 400 houses per year to having a maximum of 100 houses per area per year. We, at present, do have an issue with the number of houses and the available amenities, and these issues need to be resolved before any further development is approved. This should not affect brown field site re-development as these areas should already have adequate services provided. All the social housing needs to be covered under the town authorities, rather than split with DOLGE. The town authorities already have the manpower and resources available to manage the housing stock and they would also be in a position to employ a housing manager to monitor housing for necessary improvement. A difficult question to answer is means testing as it is very emotive. A local authority house is also a person’s home and people build up friendships in the area. If we do go down the means test route, I feel the best way to achieve this is to have it done via the tax system; no extra employment costs and no extra forms to fill in. There should be a question added to the form “Do you own your own house, rent commercially, or occupy local authority housing?” The response will affect the income tax bracket allocated and the extra funding generated should help to pay for more social housing stock and repairs. Once a family’s income reaches an agreed level then there should be a means of a Government mortgage/first time buyer’s scheme, which should be offered to tenants not forced on them. Once they reach the higher level on the tax system they will be paying the equivalent of a commercial rent or mortgage anyway and they should be advised of this once they reach the highest level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Market rentals for public sector housing, but with benefits to offset rent for low income tenants. Maximum private or corporate ownership would be two properties - one to live in, one to rent out. If you own a property (anywhere) you can't rent from the Corpy/Commissioners. No exceptions, no loopholes, no 'vehicles' to effect a large property portfolio. Done. Next...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Market rentals for public sector housing, but with benefits to offset rent for low income tenants. Maximum private or corporate ownership would be two properties - one to live in, one to rent out. If you own a property (anywhere) you can't rent from the Corpy/Commissioners. No exceptions, no loopholes, no 'vehicles' to effect a large property portfolio. Done. Next...? How can I stop Seagulls shi**ing on my car when I'm at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Market rentals for public sector housing, but with benefits to offset rent for low income tenants. And what's your answer to the problem that people get discoraged from improving their situation if they know they're going to be charged higher rents? Maximum private or corporate ownership would be two properties - one to live in, one to rent out. If you own a property (anywhere) you can't rent from the Corpy/Commissioners. No exceptions, no loopholes, no 'vehicles' to effect a large property portfolio. How do you retrospectively enforce that? Force people with more than two properties to sell them? What about the effect on the market that will have, basically causing everyone who owns property to go into massive negative equity? 'No loopholes', what an interesting concept. How do you propose to enforce that? All the social housing needs to be covered under the town authorities, rather than split with DOLGE. The town authorities already have the manpower and resources available to manage the housing stock and they would also be in a position to employ a housing manager to monitor housing for necessary improvement. Disagree with that, we're just too small to need all these tiny little local authorities. The Tels/Amenity debacle is a good example of a system that's blatantly not working out for the ratepayer. Dump em all, centralise the lot, sort it out. Once they reach the higher level on the tax system they will be paying the equivalent of a commercial rent or mortgage anyway and they should be advised of this once they reach the highest level. Again, you'll just encorage people to not bother improving their careers or income if they get penalised through higher rents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 How can I stop Seagulls shi**ing on my car when I'm at work? Sorted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Market rentals for public sector housing, but with benefits to offset rent for low income tenants. And what's your answer to the problem that people get discoraged from improving their situation if they know they're going to be charged higher rents? Maximum private or corporate ownership would be two properties - one to live in, one to rent out. If you own a property (anywhere) you can't rent from the Corpy/Commissioners. No exceptions, no loopholes, no 'vehicles' to effect a large property portfolio. How do you retrospectively enforce that? Force people with more than two properties to sell them? What about the effect on the market that will have, basically causing everyone who owns property to go into massive negative equity? 'No loopholes', what an interesting concept. How do you propose to enforce that? All the social housing needs to be covered under the town authorities, rather than split with DOLGE. The town authorities already have the manpower and resources available to manage the housing stock and they would also be in a position to employ a housing manager to monitor housing for necessary improvement. Disagree with that, we're just too small to need all these tiny little local authorities. The Tels/Amenity debacle is a good example of a system that's blatantly not working out for the ratepayer. Dump em all, centralise the lot, sort it out. Once they reach the higher level on the tax system they will be paying the equivalent of a commercial rent or mortgage anyway and they should be advised of this once they reach the highest level. Again, you'll just encorage people to not bother improving their careers or income if they get penalised through higher rents. So we just keep on subsidising those who don't need it - fantastic idea, sign me up for a commissioners house, no point in paying over a £1,000 for the mortgage and the money needed to maintain the place when I can get it for less than a quarter of my mortgage and it includes the rates as well! I also would have to sell my asset to pay for my care in later years, whereas those in authority housing get it for ....... You also say dump the local authorities, LOL, you feel that the government departments are the way to go! How about 5 super authorities and an island rate whilst we are at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Its great policy on behalf of Onchan. It should be brought in Island wide. Sadly it won't come to Douglas though as its only council house votes keeping people in the Keys and the Town Council. In Pully they've all got their shiny new houses now and I'd hazard a guess that many elected representatives would be out on their arses if anyone tries to change the house for life mentality of many Douglas tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spock Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Proof that the IOM Civil Service is the tail that wags the dog of Government. Further to the recent Tynwald Questions from David Cannan on Tuesday 22 January The Hon Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Chief Minister – (1) Will the Chief Minister confirm that a political decision of a Department is the sole responsibility of the Minister; and (2) will the Chief Minister confirm that a Department decision that has the approval of the Minister is the sole responsibility of that Minister? and the answers recived and debate following we now find that, in respect of public sector housing policy, John Shimmin the DLGE Minister hasn't seen and read all the proposals or been briefed in person by the local authorities or entered into discussions with them but has relied on a decline of the idea provided by the un-elected Civil Servant and Director of Estates. Housing call unlikely, says Minister 29/01/2008 05:22:51 The Local Government Minister says his department's unlikely to support Onchan Commissioners' calls for changes to public sector housing provision. In a submission to the Municipal Association, the local authority suggested at the end of a five-year lease, tenants whose income had improved substantially should not have the lease renewed. John Shimmin says he was disappointed by the commissioners' comments, but admitted he hadn't seen them in full. He added he was aware some local authorities get frustrated by the current system (audio file attached): Clip 1 Quite honestly the response from John Shimmin is pathetic and shows how un-prepared he is in dealing with this issue before committing himself to speaking in public on the record regarding CoMin Government (not Civil Service) and the policy issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 So we just keep on subsidising those who don't need it - fantastic idea, sign me up for a commissioners house, no point in paying over a £1,000 for the mortgage and the money needed to maintain the place when I can get it for less than a quarter of my mortgage and it includes the rates as well! I also would have to sell my asset to pay for my care in later years, whereas those in authority housing get it for ....... I asked you a question about your proposal, I didn't disregard it. If you want to live in a commissioners house, great, go do so. I don't, I'm happy to pay for my house, it's better. You also say dump the local authorities, LOL, you feel that the government departments are the way to go! How about 5 super authorities and an island rate whilst we are at it! Island rate no problem, don't see why you need five authorities, one would be plenty, ta. Can you justify more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 ..........Oh, and there should also be planning restrictions on installing satellite dishes on council houses. I must be missing something here, why? Sky TV is relatively cheap nowadays. Would you also like us to have incoming calls only on our phone lines and no internet access? Because god forbid any parent is trying to give their children educational opportunities so that they don't have to live the lives that they do. Apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but I don't live in a council house through choice, I live in one through necessity. I wouldn't call £45 for the full package cheap, thats £540 per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Slim - higher rents won't discourage anyone from wanting to better themselves, any more than the higher taxes you pay when you get a promotion. And as for the two-house rule, I'd phase that in over a period of maybe 10 years for existing landlords to allow people to liquidate their property assets gradually if they wanted to and not flood the market. We all know that clever accountants can devise all sorts of 'asset management' routines - I'm simply saying that these need to be identified before the laws are changed, and allowed for. It seems - after reading this thread - that there are people out there who are systematically abusing the present rules for personal gain. If I was an MHK I'd be asking pertinent questions about how many tenants are also property owners, and about how many tenants have a 'family' income above the average salary. I'd then seek to pass legislation to stop the freeloaders and release homes to honest working people on low incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spock Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Slim - higher rents won't discourage anyone from wanting to better themselves, any more than the higher taxes you pay when you get a promotion. And as for the two-house rule, I'd phase that in over a period of maybe 10 years for existing landlords to allow people to liquidate their property assets gradually if they wanted to and not flood the market. We all know that clever accountants can devise all sorts of 'asset management' routines - I'm simply saying that these need to be identified before the laws are changed, and allowed for. It seems - after reading this thread - that there are people out there who are systematically abusing the present rules for personal gain. If I was an MHK I'd be asking pertinent questions about how many tenants are also property owners, and about how many tenants have a 'family' income above the average salary. I'd then seek to pass legislation to stop the freeloaders and release homes to honest working people on low incomes. Your not wrong - but the MHK responsible is John Shimmin who nows has a prejudiced view-point seeing as how he has taken advice from the civil service DOLGE Director of Estates who can't be wrong can he-or can he? The question now is:- does John Shimmin have the backbonenand vision to deal with the situation from a policy perspective emanating from CoMin, or will he and CoMin accept verbatim what the Civil Servants tell them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Your not wrong - but the MHK responsible is John Shimmin who nows has a prejudiced view-point seeing as how he has taken advice from the civil service DOLGE Director of Estates who can't be wrong can he-or can he? The question now is:- does John Shimmin have the backbonenand vision to deal with the situation from a policy perspective emanating from CoMin, or will he and CoMin accept verbatim what the Civil Servants tell them? Sorry, you've completely lost me there. I know Vulcan is your first language, but do you think you could re-write your post in English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spock Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Your not wrong - but the MHK responsible is John Shimmin who nows has a prejudiced view-point seeing as how he has taken advice from the civil service DOLGE Director of Estates who can't be wrong can he-or can he? The question now is:- does John Shimmin have the backbonenand vision to deal with the situation from a policy perspective emanating from CoMin, or will he and CoMin accept verbatim what the Civil Servants tell them? Sorry, you've completely lost me there. I know Vulcan is your first language, but do you think you could re-write your post in English? sorry, but this is the best text that the universal translator will provide in relation to previous posts and comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.