Moghrey Mie Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 It also allows the council to build new housing stock (which they failed to do in the UK) - and mix tenants and homeowners leading to better quality estates. Mixing tenants and homeowners has NEVER led to better quality estates. Council tenants are lower down the class scale and jealous of homeowners financial status Homeowners are higher up the class scale and resentful / snobbish towards council tenants. Unfortunately the above statements are facts of life that will never improve the quality of estates It's attitudes like this that perpetuate the class system. People are people. People who own their own houses are no better than anybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 We seriously need to consider this proposal in light of what looks like could be a slow few years for the building trade IMO, whilst at the same time pushing to build the houses we need and will need. first we bail out the banks, now we have to worry about the builders??? it wouldn't be such a bad worry IF the builders were local small companies with local/native staff, but the companies that get these contracts are the biggies staffed by a migrant scousers, paddys and jocks that couldn't find work at home. there are enough empty new houses as it is, and if all the new houses that are manned by staff on cheap rents to make them look sold really were taken into account there would be more. if all the migrant cowboy builders went home there would be plenty of housing, the snag being it is in the private sector and not 'cheap' even though it didn't really cost that much to build. when/if this credit crunch takes off big time, there will be a few half finished houses around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 We seriously need to consider this proposal in light of what looks like could be a slow few years for the building trade IMO, whilst at the same time pushing to build the houses we need and will need. first we bail out the banks, now we have to worry about the builders??? it wouldn't be such a bad worry IF the builders were local small companies with local/native staff, but the companies that get these contracts are the biggies staffed by a migrant scousers, paddys and jocks that couldn't find work at home. there are enough empty new houses as it is, and if all the new houses that are manned by staff on cheap rents to make them look sold really were taken into account there would be more. if all the migrant cowboy builders went home there would be plenty of housing, the snag being it is in the private sector and not 'cheap' even though it didn't really cost that much to build. when/if this credit crunch takes off big time, there will be a few half finished houses around. I take your point, but the reality of the previous order was that between them estate agents, bankers, developers and planners and the quick-buck-buy-to- let brigade all helped to artifically increase house prices and get us in the mess we got in. However, fact is we need 16,000 affordable new homes before 2020, and in the 'new order', mortgages are likely to be held to the limits set by bank managers like Mr Mainwaring of 4 times salary to avoid the same mess in the future. As unemployment bites, and more regulation comes in, this means house prices are going to drop, developers will put off projects and some building and ancillary companies will start to die off raising unemployment i.e. few buildings and houses will be built. In the meantime we have a massive demand for housing and social housing that way outweighs supply, and some people in social housing with the ability and desire to purchase them. That's why I think the government should consider this way forward, but only if they replace and add to the existing housing stock i.e. at the same time increase the number of private houses AND the social housing provision. The UK government have announced they are throwing £8 Bn to do something similar. Surely it is better to minimise unemployment and help to increase the housing we require? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 We seriously need to consider this proposal in light of what looks like could be a slow few years for the building trade IMO, whilst at the same time pushing to build the houses we need and will need. first we bail out the banks, now we have to worry about the builders??? it wouldn't be such a bad worry IF the builders were local small companies with local/native staff, but the companies that get these contracts are the biggies staffed by a migrant scousers, paddys and jocks that couldn't find work at home. there are enough empty new houses as it is, and if all the new houses that are manned by staff on cheap rents to make them look sold really were taken into account there would be more. if all the migrant cowboy builders went home there would be plenty of housing, the snag being it is in the private sector and not 'cheap' even though it didn't really cost that much to build. when/if this credit crunch takes off big time, there will be a few half finished houses around. In the meantime we have a massive demand for housing and social housing that way outweighs supply, and some people in social housing with the ability and desire to purchase them. That's why I think the government should consider this way forward, but only if they replace and add to the existing housing stock i.e. at the same time increase the number of private houses AND the social housing provision. The UK government have announced they are throwing £8 Bn to do something similar. Surely it is better to minimise unemployment and help to increase the housing we require? i take your point, but the government won't put its hand in our pocket and sort it out. and when it tries to, ( ballasalla here ) another government department turns down the planning at the request of numpty locals. but dungdara and heretic homes just keep appealing till they get their own way. BUT the government doesn't want to compete with them because they would rather get the revenue from the new houses etc via lawyers taxes, builders taxes etc than put them out off the gravy train and have to step up themselves, far better to have houses for people to strtech themselves to the limits to buy in the private sector, than have to build the same folks similar houses at everbody's expense from the government coffers for a pittance of rental income. ask yourself if there were suddenly 2000 new, empty corpy houses, who would be left to buy from the private sector?? it would collapse the market. many corpy homes are taken up by the single mum ( i got pregnant to get a house ) brigade too. these bikey wasters should be in communal homes with shared facillities and not their own 2 bedroom flats. see how many pissed slappers want to rush for those accomodations?? in fact thats what the old prison could become, a local poor/work house full of village bikes and their bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Medway sold all of their housing stock to a private company a number of years ago. Everyone had a zero or a £1 council tax bill for 2 or 3 years after that. When the money was gone, the twats that voted the for the sale of the stock moved out of the area and bills soared to over 2 grand a year. So - those wanting to know where the money will go - that could be your answer ... remind me again, the area under consideration is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Didn't I read that the person proposing this is a tenant and lives in a LA house. If so he won't even have a vote as he has a pecunary interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 What a dumb idea. half of those living in council houses cant afford to pay the day to day bills, what chance have they got in paying a mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 What a dumb idea. half of those living in council houses cant afford to pay the day to day bills, what chance have they got in paying a mortgage. so half could afford it then?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Simple equation. Is: Price of selling a house >= cost of building a replacement If not then this scheme can never work. It is ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that all those years of paying rent has somehow contributed to purchasing the property. That would hardly cover the cost of the original capital outlay and maintenance. This scheme is a no go from the start but it will be interesting to see how Tony and his pals on the Council of Ministers deal with it in the House of Keys. Bearing in mind that the MHK for Castletown will be expecting to walk back in come the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Why is averybody SO anal about LA homes and home owners here? So - you have your own home - good, if you live in a LA house, you have a home - good. The fact that people had their lives mapped out, left school, got a good job, saved, paid a deposit (remember those) and stepped on the housing ladder does not give them the right to look at those living in LA housing as lower class, poor, unemployed or anything else for that matter. Ma and Pa have have lived in their place for over 40 years, it is their home, the fact they do not own it is not an issue. Like it or not, people have the right to stay in a home, however it is supplied. Do people look at those renting from the private sector the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith brief Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 "looking down upon" is a bit strong. An element of resentment is possibly more accurate as mortgage payers are not only responsible for covering the costs of maintaining their own houses but for the maintenence of other LA houses through their rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 "looking down upon" is a bit strong. An element of resentment is possibly more accurate as mortgage payers are not only responsible for covering the costs of maintaining their own houses but for the maintenence of other LA houses through their rates. True - but everyone pays taxes and NI for contributing to the society they live in. Do people expect a tax rebate when they choose to walk and not use the bus, expect a rebate when they have had no reason to call the Police - or NI rebate for every year they had have not had an accident? I would have thought in today climate of doom and crash, those with their own homes would like to think twice - and remember that it all could change tomorrow - job goes, home goes or health goes - would this, or any other normal civil society expect those people to live on the streets? FYI - my parents place had its rates added to the rent. When the council tax came in, the rates did not drop by that ammount - and the bill still had to be paid. So you could say they are paying rates twice, and subsidising home onwers rates who only pay once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith brief Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'd agree. It is easier to judge when things are personally in order. That said, I do get really irritated however, when I see LA houses clearly taken for granted and neglected. It's a personal opinion that all sectors of society have a responsibility to eachother and that areas such as LA houses are necessary. But, areas such as these should be regarded as a privilege and not an automatic right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 And then you have those that have sold their own properties for a nice profit and then be allocated a LA house. You also have those that run a business from an LA house, total piss takers, and they would also be the the first to buy and sell a subsidised house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 These sales would be subject to the usual surveys etc? Can anyone me if a house is found to be full of asbestos (the nasty stuff) what effect that would have on the survey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.