La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Just wondering if that's legal actually. If the Housing Division says you have to move out to a nearby house because it is being renovated and then move back in, shouldn't they tenant be moved back in on the same terms as before? I don't know but that's how it is done anyway. I don't think there is any way of forcing existing open-ended tenancy holders onto a five-year tenancy or it is too politically confrontational to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 4 minutes ago, La_Dolce_Vita said: Just wondering if that's legal actually. If the Housing Division says you have to move out to a nearby house because it is being renovated and then move back in, shouldn't they tenant be moved back in on the same terms as before? I don't know but that's how it is done anyway. I don't think there is any way of forcing existing open-ended tenancy holders onto a five-year tenancy or it is too politically confrontational to do so. Why should tenants get a house for life. Circumstances change, kids move out so the relevant housing division should be able to downsize as appropriate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Passing Time said: Why should tenants get a house for life. Circumstances change, kids move out so the relevant housing division should be able to downsize as appropriate. I don't know. Why are you asking me? If you're asking because of what I said about legality then I'm asking whether it is legal to tell a tenant that you do doing away with their contract and putting them on a means-tested one. If you can't just do that then it doesn't matter what you'd like in society, it's a legal matter. Edited February 10 by La_Dolce_Vita 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Means testing is a dirty word, or two if you are going to be pedantic, no politician will go near , it never have, never will, as they pretty well all have public sector houses in their constituencies . The main ambition or in some cases the only ambition of a politician is to keep the voters sweet, there is always an eye to the next election. This is why nothing of note ever gets done, decisions are not made, cans kicked in long grass , we will put it out to consultation is the cry …why they are not interested in anything the public has to say they are covering there scrawny backsides so no small part of blame can ever be attributed to them. They are cowards pure and simple. Why did Callister divert the vote on the Bishop and who diverted the vote on assisted dying etc, etc. yellow livered clowns. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 It's already in existence. The problem is that different people are on different tenancy agreements. Is that fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Poppins Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 The one and only way to solve the Housing Crisis would be the direct provision of something like between 500 and 1,000 social housing units over the next ~5 years. Not bunging developers a few million and hoping they'll build a few 'FTB' homes out of the kindness of their hearts. Government already has the land bank to make this happen. The housing crisis has ripples through the the island's economy. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 12 hours ago, Hairy Poppins said: The one and only way to solve the Housing Crisis would be the direct provision of something like between 500 and 1,000 social housing units over the next ~5 years. Not bunging developers a few million and hoping they'll build a few 'FTB' homes out of the kindness of their hearts. Government already has the land bank to make this happen. The housing crisis has ripples through the the island's economy. This government seems determined not to build any social housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Poppins Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, Moghrey Mie said: This government seems determined not to build any social housing. They've tried to shirk that responsibility by letting local authorities deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 On 2/10/2024 at 10:19 PM, Hairy Poppins said: The one and only way to solve the Housing Crisis would be the direct provision of something like between 500 and 1,000 social housing units over the next ~5 years. Not bunging developers a few million and hoping they'll build a few 'FTB' homes out of the kindness of their hearts. Government already has the land bank to make this happen. The housing crisis has ripples through the the island's economy. Problem with your suggestion is the old “Build it and they will come.” The more houses, the greater the requirement. It needs to be means tested and rent adjusted according to income. If the social housing rent becomes greater than private rent, it is their choice. Why they keep ripping down and rebuilding old properties, rather than sell them to first time buyers as fixer-uppers, and using the money to create new social housing, is beyond me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Poppins Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 34 minutes ago, Cambon said: Problem with your suggestion is the old “Build it and they will come.” The more houses, the greater the requirement. It needs to be means tested and rent adjusted according to income. If the social housing rent becomes greater than private rent, it is their choice. Why they keep ripping down and rebuilding old properties, rather than sell them to first time buyers as fixer-uppers, and using the money to create new social housing, is beyond me. Of course it should be property means tested. That's the right and sensible thing to do. The issue with selling off older properties that need work as FTB houses is that lenders are less likely to lend on them... also with the current interest rates of 6%+ for FTB mortgages it leaves little money for the average earner to carry out work... the price of getting (decent) trades in to do various work has also understandably shot up in the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 1 hour ago, Cambon said: Problem with your suggestion is the old “Build it and they will come.” The more houses, the greater the requirement. It needs to be means tested and rent adjusted according to income. If the social housing rent becomes greater than private rent, it is their choice. Why they keep ripping down and rebuilding old properties, rather than sell them to first time buyers as fixer-uppers, and using the money to create new social housing, is beyond me. 57 minutes ago, Hairy Poppins said: Of course it should be property means tested. That's the right and sensible thing to do. The issue with selling off older properties that need work as FTB houses is that lenders are less likely to lend on them... also with the current interest rates of 6%+ for FTB mortgages it leaves little money for the average earner to carry out work... the price of getting (decent) trades in to do various work has also understandably shot up in the last few years. But, we already have a means tested benefits system. Why introduce a parallel means testing bureaucracy for entitlement to public/social housing and fixing rent levels? There are a number of ways of dealing with this. My preferred way is market rent and means tested benefit to assist those who can’t afford.. The subsidy is still public money. It still comes via Treasury out of taxes paid. But it’s honest. Why should the identical house have different rent levels depending on the tenant? Unnecessarily complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 On 2/11/2024 at 12:31 PM, Hairy Poppins said: They've tried to shirk that responsibility by letting local authorities deal with it. But don't local authorities have to get permission to borrow money and build them? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Just now, Moghrey Mie said: But don't local authorities have to get permission to borrow money and build them? And the deficit they inevitably run on the housing account, after allowing for deduction of rates, repairs and maintenance, and the allowed ( very low ) return on historic investment is met from central government taxpayers income, not local authorities from their ratepayers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 16 minutes ago, John Wright said: And the deficit they inevitably run on the housing account, after allowing for deduction of rates, repairs and maintenance, and the allowed ( very low ) return on historic investment is met from central government taxpayers income, not local authorities from their ratepayers. That's why you don't see any social housing going up in Maughold. It should not be left for local authorities to deal with. We need a strategic housing policy for the whole island. 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.