finlo Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 2 hours ago, John Wright said: You only need means testing when supply is inadequate. Build more. Charge market rents. But support those who can’t afford. Reduce market rents by building more private, as well as public, first time buyers and old persons and sheltered housing. Housing costs are dictated by two things, shortage of supply and cost of borrowing. The increase in housing purchase price knocks on to rent. The low interest rates make overpriced housing “affordable” to the few. We need to fully explore government and local authority provision of serviced plots, like happened in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s, shared ownership, buy to rent, and housing associations. This could be funded by transferring all our public housing to one or more Manx National Housing Associations. Sell of up to 50% shares and issue bonds. Use the money raised to satisfy demand. Allow tenants to buy, but reinvest the sale proceeds. Inject the other 50% into the NI fund, or a Manx Infrastructure Investment Agency. Sounds good but you know as well as I where any monies generated would end up! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 (edited) Time for a local and open market here like in Channel Islands, with transferable permits. Net result less many to landowners and lower cost smaller properties for local buyers Edited July 24, 2021 by Russ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 29 minutes ago, Russ said: Time for a local and open market here like in Channel Islands, with transferable permits. Net result less many to landowners and lower cost smaller properties for local buyers The CI has a much greater population density than the IOM. High prices are a problem in all nice areas - if you think the rock is expensive then try my neck of the woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buncha wankas Posted July 25, 2021 Share Posted July 25, 2021 On 7/24/2021 at 7:42 AM, John Wright said: You only need means testing when supply is inadequate. Build more. Charge market rents. But support those who can’t afford. Reduce market rents by building more private, as well as public, first time buyers and old persons and sheltered housing. Housing costs are dictated by two things, shortage of supply and cost of borrowing. The increase in housing purchase price knocks on to rent. The low interest rates make overpriced housing “affordable” to the few. We need to fully explore government and local authority provision of serviced plots, like happened in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s, shared ownership, buy to rent, and housing associations. This could be funded by transferring all our public housing to one or more Manx National Housing Associations. Sell of up to 50% shares and issue bonds. Use the money raised to satisfy demand. Allow tenants to buy, but reinvest the sale proceeds. Inject the other 50% into the NI fund, or a Manx Infrastructure Investment Agency. One small problem one or two large companies have been buying up all the land over the years and now own our arse. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted July 25, 2021 Share Posted July 25, 2021 31 minutes ago, buncha wankas said: One small problem one or two large companies have been buying up all the land over the years and now own our arse. Let's not blame the companies. No-one forced anyone to sell to them. Landowners got greedy. With regard to social housing nothing will change. At the first sign of potential eviction, occupiers who are house blocking will be straight on to their MHK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 26, 2021 Share Posted July 26, 2021 Guernsey's system is good, not Jersey's. I think it would work well here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Woke Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Agreed. The problem with social housing is the affordability. The 7.5 percent rise will generate about £500.000 for maintenance purposes. However this will incur an extra cost of £900.000 to the Govt spent on benefits. So you raise the rents to pay for maintenance and lose double to any gain! (so why didn’t the Govt just hand the money over to the DOI and save on benefits). The DOI had wanted to raise the rents by over 30% to cover the social housing deficit. If this had happened the benefits increase to the Govt would have been astronomical. How much of a deficit is there?! it must be in the millions and growing. Building more social housing using the current systems and tenancy agreements is obviously unaffordable. It does appear that to some politicians having a captive social housing electorate in your constituency is a sure fire way of getting re-elected. So don’t upset the voters or you will be out on your ear. We do need Social Housing but not this current model! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 17 minutes ago, Mr Woke said: Agreed. The problem with social housing is the affordability. The 7.5 percent rise will generate about £500.000 for maintenance purposes. However this will incur an extra cost of £900.000 to the Govt spent on benefits. So you raise the rents to pay for maintenance and lose double to any gain! (so why didn’t the Govt just hand the money over to the DOI and save on benefits). The DOI had wanted to raise the rents by over 30% to cover the social housing deficit. If this had happened the benefits increase to the Govt would have been astronomical. How much of a deficit is there?! it must be in the millions and growing. Building more social housing using the current systems and tenancy agreements is obviously unaffordable. It does appear that to some politicians having a captive social housing electorate in your constituency is a sure fire way of getting re-elected. So don’t upset the voters or you will be out on your ear. We do need Social Housing but not this current model! The rent model is fine, as long as the rents are set properly. As you've pointed out a rent increase results in a benefits increase, but the majority of social housing tenants are not on benefits. The increase in benefits comes from Treasury out of tax received. Allocating the same amount to DoI is still the same tax payers money. Rents should be market rent, based on 4% or 5% return on historic and renewal/renovation/refurbishment costs, after repairs and maintenance. We have a benefits system in place already, so it makes sense to pay subsidy via the benefits system, to those who qualify. Profits could be used to fund bonds/debentures to pay for new social housing. That would allow the stock to transfer to a Social Housing provider. Assuming a life expectancy of 60 years this should eventually become self financing. Government should hold a golden share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 14 minutes ago, John Wright said: Rents should be market rent, Hmmm. Who defines it? My landlord put my rent up fairly recently, saying that's the market rate, so private rental demand is reasonably high so they can screw their tenants for an extra £700 a year, don't get anything for it. Fuck 'market rents' and using them as any kind of sensible figure for social housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 46 minutes ago, Mr Woke said: Agreed. The problem with social housing is the affordability. The 7.5 percent rise will generate about £500.000 for maintenance purposes. However this will incur an extra cost of £900.000 to the Govt spent on benefits. So you raise the rents to pay for maintenance and lose double to any gain! (so why didn’t the Govt just hand the money over to the DOI and save on benefits). The DOI had wanted to raise the rents by over 30% to cover the social housing deficit. If this had happened the benefits increase to the Govt would have been astronomical. How much of a deficit is there?! it must be in the millions and growing. Building more social housing using the current systems and tenancy agreements is obviously unaffordable. It does appear that to some politicians having a captive social housing electorate in your constituency is a sure fire way of getting re-elected. So don’t upset the voters or you will be out on your ear. We do need Social Housing but not this current model! You’re assuming everyone in social housing is on benefits but they’re not, many in social housing have multiple incomes coming in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 35 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Hmmm. Who defines it? My landlord put my rent up fairly recently, saying that's the market rate, so private rental demand is reasonably high so they can screw their tenants for an extra £700 a year, don't get anything for it. Fuck 'market rents' and using them as any kind of sensible figure for social housing. I made a suggestion of a mechanism based on a lowish rate of return on historical capital cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 6 hours ago, TheTeapot said: Hmmm. Who defines it? My landlord put my rent up fairly recently, saying that's the market rate, so private rental demand is reasonably high so they can screw their tenants for an extra £700 a year, don't get anything for it. Fuck 'market rents' and using them as any kind of sensible figure for social housing. https://www.courts.im/media/2250/2019-rent-rating-comm-info.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 35 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: https://www.courts.im/media/2250/2019-rent-rating-comm-info.pdf But not for social housing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, John Wright said: But not for social housing The general rule of thumb is that no more than 30% of net income should go on housing (rent and rates) costs. I think the recommendations report stated 35% which is probably reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 8 minutes ago, John Wright said: But not for social housing There is no social housing here. It is public sector because it is provided entirely by government using public money. Social housing is provided by not for profit housing associations operating under regulation that does not yet exist here. Though strangely with law to enable their formation. Edited February 6 by english zloty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.