Housing

[amateur51]

I've never seen the point of owning the building one lives in.

Neither have I but then I think that the dynastic approach to housing is deeply antisocial.

[jean]

I agree with you. But if I didn't own the building I live in, I would have very little left after I'd paid the rent to whoever did own it.

So I succumb, and behave in a deeply antisocial manner.

[amateur51]

I agree with you. But if I didn't own the building I live in, I would have very little left after I'd paid the rent to whoever did own it.

So I succumb, and behave in a deeply antisocial manner.

Agreed jean hence my opposition to private renting, which I am forced to do at 2.5 times the social housing rent. Of course the Housing Benefit bill is out of control when it is subject to the 'laws' of supply & demand as implemented by private landlords. My council pays £1,000 every four weeks to a private landlord to house me in a flat that it used to own - crazy!

[Richard Barrett]

Agreed jean hence my opposition to private renting, which I am forced to do at 2.5 times the social housing rent. Of course the Housing Benefit bill is out of control when it is subject to the 'laws' of supply & demand as implemented by private landlords. My council pays £1,000 every four weeks to a private landlord to house me in a flat that it used to own - crazy!

Indeed - the way housing is organised in the UK is a total swindle compared with most places in Europe.

[teamsaint]

Indeed - the way housing is organised in the UK is a total swindle compared with most places in Europe.

So are there things that the EU can teach us about good housing provision?
Because that would be good.

[amateur51]

So are there things that the EU can teach us about good housing provision?
Because that would be good.

The comparative figures in this table show that Germany, France, Netherlands and Denmark are way ahead of UK in % who rent. What type of rental is not identified, sadly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Europe

These data need some crunching

http://epthinktank.eu/2013/04/04/social-housing-in-europe/

Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a long-term interest in these issues, possibly this is a good starter (though 12 years old):

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/british-social-rented-housing-european-context

[Beef Oven!]

So are there things that the EU can teach us about good housing provision?
Because that would be good.

Europe and Europeans might teach us things, but not an "undemocratic bosses' club like the EU which promotes neoliberal ideology, austerity measures that protect the financial institutions which make themselves richer on the back of a "crisis" they created; policies that have eroded workers' rights and promoted privatisation of public services, and so on" (RB 2014). How is the EU going to teach us anything on housing!!?

[amateur51]

"... they do things differently there"

Interesting report on the German approach to unemployment benefit.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/20/unemployment-benefit-germany-jobseekers-allowance

[teamsaint]

Europe and Europeans might teach us things, but not an "undemocratic bosses' club like the EU which promotes neoliberal ideology, austerity measures that protect the financial institutions which make themselves richer on the back of a "crisis" they created; policies that have eroded workers' rights and promoted privatisation of public services, and so on". How is the EU going to teach us anything on housing!!?

just asking. You never know your luck.

But your comments about financial institutions are spot on. This is where the real issues are.

[Richard Barrett]

your comments about financial institutions are spot on

They're quoted from one of my posts!

[teamsaint]

They're quoted from one of my posts!

well those kind of things are exactly the kinds of Euro issues (especially about financial institutions) that I have been going on about for ages round here, so it looks like our hymn sheets are well placed.

My question about the EU and housing was a bit tongue in cheek and optimistic, but , as I said, you never know......

[Richard Barrett]

My question about the EU and housing was a bit tongue in cheek and optimistic, but , as I said, you never know......

Quite. But I don't think the EU does any legislation on housing, does it? (so things like the bedroom tax were certainly not imposed from "Brussels"!) During the twelve years until the end of 2013 during which I lived mostly in Berlin, I knew hardly anyone who owned the place where they lived, or had any ambition to do so. (Owner-occupation in Berlin runs at about 10% I think, low even for Germany.) There's no particular incentive - and why actually should there be? Mind you, the fact that "property" in Berlin is dirt cheap compared to most other major European cities means that the vultures are getting their cheque books out, so I guess that might gradually change.

[Beef Oven!]

just asking. You never know your luck.

But your comments about financial institutions are spot on. This is where the real issues are.

Indeed. The comments are quoted and the source acknowledged ;-)

[ahinton]

That isn't quite so, however: there was a time in human (pre)history before ownership of homes, at least if we're to accept the implications of the structure of some of the earliest cities like Çatalhöyük in present-day Turkey, which "had no apparent social classes, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status" - I've always thought that the argument that people are and always have been greedy and selfish would rather make the origin of things like urban life and agriculture rather improbable, since both depend so crucially on cooperation and collective planning.

"There was a time", indeed - but would you not agree that so very much of what's happened since has altered that kind of perspective irrevocably? It seems to me that developments in science, travel and heaven knows what else have indirectly give rise to greater risk of hierarchical structures although, as they've occurred, few until relatively recently have perhaps thought that this might brings with it its own dangers and problems. Also, even "the argument that people are and always have been greedy and selfish" is not usually paraded as though to imply that these are all people's only or abiding characteristics.

I've never seen the point of owning the building one lives in.

And many would agree, especially those who live in apartments; that, however, doesn't mean that other people might want to own their homes and pehaps can see points in so doing, even if only for them - comparative security of tenure and greater control over maintenance and repairs, for starters (provided that those owners can afford to buy and maintain in the first place, of course). Moreover, if everyone saw no point in owning his/her own home, wouldn't there then arise the risk of divisivness between those who own property and those who occupy it? Someone always has to own the property, whether or not they live in it themselves.

[Serial_Apologist]

"There was a time", indeed - but would you not agree that so very much of what's happened since has altered that kind of perspective irrevocably? It seems to me that developments in science, travel and heaven knows what else have indirectly give rise to greater risk of hierarchical structures although, as they've occurred, few until relatively recently have perhaps thought that this might brings with it its own dangers and problems. Also, even "the argument that people are and always have been greedy and selfish" is not usually paraded as though to imply that these are all people's only or abiding characteristics.

Was it William Blake (I always forget!) who said words to the effect that the fool who persists in his folly will become wise?

Something of the kind started to happen, I believe, in the 1960s, with the coming together of the developing edge of ecological science and influences from Buddhism and Taoism: not just on the Beatles, who were influenced as much as influencing, but from a percipient foresight among some of the best-read of that generation in the "free West" that happiness did not reside in consumerism, and consumerism was the new version of capitalism that would win the working class from enacting damaging, anti-competitive behaviour through industrial action. The rich & powerful couldn't have that happening, for goodness' sakes: where would it all end? with everyone dropping out, turning on and getting unproductively creative?

And many would agree, especially those who live in apartments; that, however, doesn't mean that other people might want to own their homes and pehaps can see points in so doing, even if only for them - comparative security of tenure and greater control over maintenance and repairs, for starters (provided that those owners can afford to buy and maintain in the first place, of course). Moreover, if everyone saw no point in owning his/her own home, wouldn't there then arise the risk of divisivness between those who own property and those who occupy it? Someone always has to own the property, whether or not they live in it themselves.

Not as I see it. The "ownership" could be in the hands of a bank as a sort of collective Trust, guarded under democratic control through electable officials who could be literally "brought to account". It wouldn't cost nearly as much as the duplication afforded by having numerous large banks such as the unaccountable ones still in existence that caused the 2008 crash, and no more compete on some Adam Smithian level playing field than do the multinational oligopolies in other areas that combine operations worldwide to keep prices high.