Housing

[amateur51]

But how could such a reduction, welcome though it would be, be achieved?


It looks that way, but no one can control how much rent is charged by public or private landlords and, even if they could and rents were reduced across the board accordingly, HM Treasury would take in a whole lot less tax!

When housing associations were funded by a quango, The Housing Corporation, to build & develop new housing schemes, the rents were builtinto the scheme finances and if they were excessive, the scheme didn't get funding. In the 1980s the NFHA (Nat Fed of Housing Assocs) deemed that 'affordable' housing was rents at 20% of income. Nowadays an 'affordable' social rent is deemed by Govt to be 80% of market, i.e., PRS rents. Madness. So Government sets targets and the developers aim to meet those targets. Back to political will.

[jean]

...Thatcher forced councils into giveaway prices and then legislated to stop the councils reinvesting even the paltry revenues in new housing stock.

That was the wickedest thing of all. I still meet people who refuse to believe that it happened.

[jean]

...What's the evidence that there is so much property in need of renovation that doing so would go any way to sorting out the local authority waiting list?...

There's plenty of it around these parts.

But the misguided HMRI was based on the premise that 'renewal' couldn't happen unless the old housing stock was pulled down.

(This of course is the option preferred by builders, since the government bowed to pressure from them and cut VAT on newbuild, leaving it in place for renovations.)

Anyone who wants to be reminded of the arguments could do worse than attend the enquiry into the Welsh Streets that started in Liverpool last Tuesday.

[amateur51]

That was the wickedest thing of all. I still meet people who refuse to believe that it happened.

So do I jean - that and Shirley Porter's gerrymandering.

[ahinton]

Eh? What have I missed ? Someone did own the property - the public. But Thatcher forced councils into giveaway prices and then legislated to stop the councils reinvesting even the paltry revenues in new housing stock.

The public did not own the property; the local authorities did. They are not the public; they are funded by the public and by any profits that they can achieve on funds provided by the public. I have no time for the way in which Thatcher handled this; it was quite obviously wrong on many counts. That said, the principle of allowng local authority tenants to purchase their homes was not in and of itself wrong and to give such tenants discounts based upon the length of their tenancies did not seem to me to be especially unfair either; after all, the saving to the local authority would not just be in attracting the purchase funds but also in no longer having to maintain and insure the properties once they'd been sold. Forcing local authorities not to reinvest those savings in new housing stock does indeed seem unreasonable on the face of it, but a viable alternative could have been to forcing them to ensure that those monies were spent in other ways to the benefit of the investors (i.e. the council tax payers) by allocating them to other services that they (those local authorities) provide.

So - C minus to Thatcher for the ways in which this was done, for sure, but not every aspect of it was wrong in principle.

[amateur51]

There's plenty of it around these parts.

But the misguided HMRI was based on the premise that 'renewal' couldn't happen unless the old housing stock was pulled down.

(This of course is the option preferred by builders, since the government bowed to pressure from them and cut VAT on newbuild, leaving it in place for renovations.)

Anyone who wants to be reminded of the arguments could do worse than attend the enquiry into the Welsh Streets that started in Liverpool last Tuesday.

Did you ever come across Barry Natton at MIH, jean? - MIH now part of something bigger and called something else.

Later: Riverside Housing, I think

[ahinton]

Renovation has been tried certainly to my knowledge since the 1970s but do you mean privately-owned or publicly-owned properties.

Both; just as new housing stock requires investment from both sectors, so the properties to be renovated to provide a proportion of them should be owned by both.

What's the evidence that there is so much property in need of renovation that doing so would go any way to sorting out the local authority waiting list? I don't mean there isn't any, I'm just interested in up-to-date data.

That I cannot provide right now, but there is quite an amount of derelict and semi-derelict property, especially in inner cities, that could be commandeered for such a purpose and some of it has already been renovated to make new homes; the problem for some people is that a disproportionate amount of this has been done by the private sector in turning disused warehouses, factories and the like into fantastically expensive pads for the wealthy, which obviously goes only a little way to addressing the problem, especially given that the problem itself principally affects those who are least able to afford either to rent or to purchase their homes.

[teamsaint]

as you go into Bath on the A36 from Bristol, (thats posh expensive Bath, somerset, world heritage city), there is a vast derelict industial estate building, empty since 2007 and a huge (I mean REALLY big) derelict bakery(I think ) site. Both walking distance to the city. Used properly, they could be developed into many hundreds or good quality housing units, with work close to hand.
Makes me sad each time I drive past.

Shouldnt be beyond the wit of a rich nation to make this happen.

kinda depends on the folks at the top wanting it to happen though.

[ahinton]

as you go into Bath on the A36 from Bristol, (thats posh expensive Bath, somerset, world heritage city), there is a vast derelict industial estate building, empty since 2007 and a huge (I mean REALLY big) derelict bakery(I think ) site. Both walking distance to the city. Used properly, they could be developed into many hundreds or good quality housing units, with work close to hand.
Makes me sad each time I drive past.

Shouldnt be beyond the wit of a rich nation to make this happen.

kinda depends on the folks at the top wanting it to happen though.

You go into Bath from Bristol on the A4, not the A36, from which you enter Bath from Warminster.

The old Stothert & Pitt site between Windsor Bridge and the site of Sainsbury's/Homebase between the Lower and Upper Bristol Roads in Bath is being developed as a massive housing project with houses and apartments up to just below £800,000 but, I understand, with the usual obligation upon developers to include a certain proportion of "low cost housing" which, of course, in Bath, is a joke because there's no such thing!

See http://www.crestnicholson.com/bathriverside/

[amateur51]

Both; just as new housing stock requires investment from both sectors, so the properties to be renovated to provide a proportion of them should be owned by both.


That I cannot provide right now, but there is quite an amount of derelict and semi-derelict property, especially in inner cities, that could be commandeered for such a purpose and some of it has already been renovated to make new homes; the problem for some people is that a disproportionate amount of this has been done by the private sector in turning disused warehouses, factories and the like into fantastically expensive pads for the wealthy, which obviously goes only a little way to addressing the problem, especially given that the problem itself principally affects those who are least able to afford either to rent or to purchase their homes.

I'm sure you're right but I wouldn't want to get into the distraction of an either/or argument - it has to be an 'and' solution.

And while we're at it, we need to build-in 'life-time' homes and Green/eco-friendly considerations too.

Keynes would be proud of us

[amateur51]

as you go into Bath on the A36 from Bristol, (thats posh expensive Bath, somerset, world heritage city), there is a vast derelict industial estate building, empty since 2007 and a huge (I mean REALLY big) derelict bakery(I think ) site. Both walking distance to the city. Used properly, they could be developed into many hundreds or good quality housing units, with work close to hand.
Makes me sad each time I drive past.

Shouldnt be beyond the wit of a rich nation to make this happen.

kinda depends on the folks at the top wanting it to happen though.

Cracking example, teams. But not just the people at the top - those of us looking up at the starts need to put pressure on those at the top to get cracking, even if (particularly if?) they're Kippers.

Whatever happened to Nosher Pickles' 'localism'?

[ahinton]

I'm sure you're right but I wouldn't want to get into the distraction of an either/or argument - it has to be an 'and' solution.

And while we're at it, we need to build-in 'life-time' homes and Green/eco-friendly considerations too.

Keynes would be proud of us

I agree that any homebuilding programme would have to include new builds as well as renovations, not least because the requirement for new homes is so very great. I also agree the sustainability and ecological credentials should play a vital part, not least because an energy-efficient home means lower outgoings for its owners or tenants.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't see the dream of home ownership as a problem. A really good, affordable, civilised rental sector would start to rebalance how we view ownership/rental anyway.

One explanation for the "dream of home ownership" to add to the age-old notion of "the Englishman's home is his castle" was the narrow strictures imposed as to what one could do in the way of internal and external alterations on local authority tenants, and a lack of consultation on matters of design and what was desirable to have inbuilt, subsequently exacerbated by councils refusing to listen, ignoring advice, or both. By the time the lessons were learned, and starting to be applied by Ken Livingstone's Greater London Authority, the horrifying thought that socialists were learning from their earlier mistakes and bringing in popular measures was too much for Mrs Thatcher, who of course disbanded the GLA.

[Serial_Apologist]

The public did not own the property; the local authorities did. They are not the public; they are funded by the public and by any profits that they can achieve on funds provided by the public.

There is a great difference between private and public ownership as regards the potential for wider control than the inadequately supervised, never elected maverick individual, whether landlord or not, and that is why the language used in discussing this issue is important if options are not to be foreclosed by "vested demoralisation". By which I mean that private interests, helped by a popular press, (and the chaos and anarchy they can cause if used as models for the ideal), are capable of justifying their own privilegeing in the scheme of a mixed economy heavily geared towards their own interests. Public ownership, which unlike private landlords can, with "people's power", be made democratically accountable, can instead be portrayed as just another institution feathering their own nests. One wonders why anyone without a vested interest, declared or otherwise, would want to do so, but jumping on any and all suggestions without offering alternatives for consideration, is part and parcel of the ideological control some actively give their consent to, for reasons of their own that are rarely explained.

I have no time for the way in which Thatcher handled this; it was quite obviously wrong on many counts. That said, the principle of allowing local authority tenants to purchase their homes was not in and of itself wrong and to give such tenants discounts based upon the length of their tenancies did not seem to me to be especially unfair either; after all, the saving to the local authority would not just be in attracting the purchase funds but also in no longer having to maintain and insure the properties once they'd been sold.

I for one don't think Mrs Thatcher gave a damn about the fact that the sales income to local authorities from selling off council properties was way below market values - markedly in contrast with today's "market rents" btw - so long as the buyers had bought into the wider dream of home ownership, which could then be passed on to succeeding generations as part of the society's collective DNA. It probably wouldn't have passed her notice that the chance one day of entrapping home owners in negative equity would provide another means of instilling class collaboration through fear: you go on strike over a wage claim, working conditions, plant closure or compulsory redundancy, and you lose your home, buddy!

Forcing local authorities not to reinvest those savings in new housing stock does indeed seem unreasonable on the face of it, but a viable alternative could have been to forcing them to ensure that those monies were spent in other ways to the benefit of the investors (i.e. the council tax payers) by allocating them to other services that they (those local authorities) provide.

Or even forcing them to build replacement public housing!

[Serial_Apologist]

Whatever happened to Nosher Pickles' 'localism'?

http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/article/4504/Secretary-of-State-grants-Pinewood-Studios-planning-permission

Next stop Heathrow...