Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Housing watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34573656

    Due to lack of housing the City of Oxford is at risk of grinding to a halt. The question is what is the solution. Let the free market sort the problem out or start building social housing again?

    No matter what we do we are going to see homelessness on a wide scale.
    How do we address the refugee crisis of Syria if we can't even house our own people?

    Some say they will adopt a Syrian family but that is only a short term measure. It will only be a matter of time till the host family get tired of supporting the refugees.
    It is a big commitment any how.

    How will our politicians react? Will they choose to prioritize one group over another in fear of being called a racist. In Sweden & Germany their Government has began to evict native people from their homes to make way for the millions of refugees entering Europe.

    Are their no housing rights for Europeans?

    Will we resort to more class war instead and seek to demonize vulnerable groups who own their own home such as pensioners and disabled people.

    Yes even disabled people can own their own home. If you don't believe me here is a Government program that has been enabling it for the last 18 years.
    http://www.scope.org.uk/support/disa...g/housing/HOLD

    "You what?"
    Insert prejudice here [ ........ ]

    Will shanty towns start to pop up? They already have in and around London with the emergence of 'Sheds with Beds'. People have been turning their back garden coal sheds into self contained flats without getting planning permission.

    This is a example of the free market responding to the demands and needs of the market. The thing is though there is a big contradiction here. It is county council's job to demolish properties which don't have planning permission yet the main Government in Westminster believe the free market will sort everything out.

    So what is the solution?

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34573656

    Due to lack of housing the City of Oxford is at risk of grinding to a halt. The question is what is the solution. Let the free market sort the problem out or start building social housing again?

    No matter what we do we are going to see homelessness on a wide scale.
    How do we address the refugee crisis of Syria if we can't even house our own people?

    Some say they will adopt a Syrian family but that is only a short term measure. It will only be a matter of time till the host family get tired of supporting the refugees.
    It is a big commitment any how.

    How will our politicians react? Will they choose to prioritize one group over another in fear of being called a racist. In Sweden & Germany their Government has began to evict native people from their homes to make way for the millions of refugees entering Europe.

    Are their no housing rights for Europeans?

    Will we resort to more class war instead and seek to demonize vulnerable groups who own their own home such as pensioners and disabled people.

    Yes even disabled people can own their own home. If you don't believe me here is a Government program that has been enabling it for the last 18 years.
    http://www.scope.org.uk/support/disa...g/housing/HOLD

    "You what?"
    Insert prejudice here [ ........ ]

    Will shanty towns start to pop up? They already have in and around London with the emergence of 'Sheds with Beds'. People have been turning their back garden coal sheds into self contained flats without getting planning permission.

    This is a example of the free market responding to the demands and needs of the market. The thing is though there is a big contradiction here. It is county council's job to demolish properties which don't have planning permission yet the main Government in Westminster believe the free market will sort everything out.

    So what is the solution?

    We have plenty of houses just not in the places where people demand to live (where the jobs are). Great news for the self employed though!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I read an interesting article a while ago making a distinction between housing need and housing demand. There is a demand for people who want to buy a house. This is pushing housing prices up. But that is quite different from the housing need for people who don't have homes i.e. those currently living in temporary accommodation or B+B.

    I don't have a problem with building more houses, but if I was a housing developer, I wouldn't be wasting time and effort on what the government calls "affordable homes" when I could make much more profit by satisfying the unending demand for expensive town houses and execrative homes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    We have plenty of houses just not in the places where people demand to live (where the jobs are). Great news for the self employed though!
    Tories have done something for those who want to own their own home but what they to realize is people need social housing to move around the country and find work. If this isn't sorted out people are going to start living in vans. I've already seen this where people have been pulling over in service station car parks and sleeping in their vans.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Tories have done something for those who want to own their own home but what they to realize is people need social housing to move around the country and find work. If this isn't sorted out people are going to start living in vans. I've already seen this where people have been pulling over in service station car parks and sleeping in their vans.
    Not a big fan of social housing personally. Rather it was all privatised to good honest landlords like myself, offering affordable rents.

    P.S People who work don't have the luxury of moving around the country without paying big bucks why should social tenants? London is out of the question for many living and working in other cities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Not a big fan of social housing personally. Rather it was all privatised to good honest landlords like myself, offering affordable rents.

    P.S People who work don't have the luxury of moving around the country without paying big bucks why should social tenants? London is out of the question for many living and working in other cities.
    Of course you would but the reality is the state will always be able to offer cheaper rents than you ever could. If your part of the class of capital public assets are your worst nightmare because you can't profit from them or the consumers that use them.

    Trouble is having a monopoly on property prices grinds to a halt the movement of labor in places where it needs to be.

    The best course of action to take is to create affordable social housing and affordable worker dormitories. I believe the state could manage these best. There is no point building public assets then handing them over to private pockets.

    If you want to attract customers I'm afraid your have to do it by offering a premium service rather than trying to get a monopoly on the bread & butter entry level assets.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Not a big fan of social housing personally. Rather it was all privatised to good honest landlords like myself, offering affordable rents.
    Its not the landlords I mind. It is the thieving agents than need sorting out!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Its not the landlords I mind. It is the thieving agents than need sorting out!
    They have a business to run, it's a lot of hassle looking after property especially when you only get a 6-12% cut. Problem tenants are a nightmare, all that risk is factored in. Blame the bad tenants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly what we need to start doing is encourage parents to keep their children at home to avoid saturating the housing market. Why don't families stay together any more? It can't be down to affluence because that merely drains it- it has become expected that you move out at eighteen and never look back- even when there is no wife/family of your own to support.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Of course you would but the reality is the state will always be able to offer cheaper rents than you ever could. If your part of the class of capital public assets are your worst nightmare because you can't profit from them or the consumers that use them.

    Trouble is having a monopoly on property prices grinds to a halt the movement of labor in places where it needs to be.

    The best course of action to take is to create affordable social housing and affordable worker dormitories. I believe the state could manage these best. There is no point building public assets then handing them over to private pockets.

    If you want to attract customers I'm afraid your have to do it by offering a premium service rather than trying to get a monopoly on the bread & butter entry level assets.
    Disagree, housing is a fundamental part of our economy now. We need new housing stock on the marketplace so people who WORK can borrow and gain a new asset which they can call home. Why should the state subsidise housing? when it's such an expensive part of life. You need to work and get on. Those with genuine disabilities we still have enough social housing for and always will.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    They have a business to run, it's a lot of hassle looking after property especially when you only get a 6-12% cut. Problem tenants are a nightmare, all that risk is factored in. Blame the bad tenants.
    Hmmm - not so sure. We rented a house for 5 months a year or so. In that time, Reed Rains managed to extract the best part of £1000 off me and still managed to sign me up for an energy supplier I didn't want which cost me dearly in increased energy costs and faff to get it all sorted out. They no doubt got their cut out of the deal. Sadly I didn't see this clause hidden on something like page 35 of a 50 page tenancy agreement!

    I have no doubt agents play their part, but at present, they are the last bastion of unregulated charlatans masquerading as legitimate businesses.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34573656

    Due to lack of housing the City of Oxford is at risk of grinding to a halt. The question is what is the solution. Let the free market sort the problem out or start building social housing again?
    Why does your knee always jerk in the direction of state-supplied amenities? If you study the problem more carefully you'll see that Oxford's problem is not a shortage of housing for the disadvantaged, but a shortage of housing - across the whole spectrum of income levels. The shortage pushes the cost of buying and renting up to unaffordable levels.

    The shortage is caused to a large extent by Oxford's success in attracting employers to the city, and by its inability to build close to the city because the city is built on a high spot among flood plains and all the good land is already taken.

    If social housing were the answer it still couldn't be built.

    But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good dig at fascist governments, eh?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Hmmm - not so sure. We rented a house for 5 months a year or so. In that time, Reed Rains managed to extract the best part of £1000 off me and still managed to sign me up for an energy supplier I didn't want which cost me dearly in increased energy costs and faff to get it all sorted out. They no doubt got their cut out of the deal. Sadly I didn't see this clause hidden on something like page 35 of a 50 page tenancy agreement!

    I have no doubt agents play their part, but at present, they are the last bastion of unregulated charlatans masquerading as legitimate businesses.
    I'm not sure on what type of agreement this was but always best to read the contract first. I'm guessing it was a HMO where you have less rights. I don't go near HMO's for this reason it's a lot more hassle for the landlord/letting agent.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No. It was an Assured Tendency agreement. It covered absolutely everything from where one was permitted to hang washing to the fact that car maintained was not allowed. And buried in there somewhere was a single sentence stating that Reed Rains would sign me up with Spark Energy.

    Costs were in the region of £350 + VAT for the privilege of doing business with Reeds Rains. £120 for the privilege of having Reed Rains do an inventory and about £440 because we left a month before the agreement finished. All plus VAT of course!

    And for that, we got absolutely nothing but agro out of the deal. Had we don't a deal with the landlord directly it would have cost us almost nothing provided we could have found a new tenant which wouldn't have been that hard. If we had stayed on for another 6 months, we would have been charged £120+VAT for Reed Rains to photocopy our tendency agreement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with social housing is not just about demand/supply, but also cash flow and the urgency of the housing problem.

    Let's say the government has $1000 allocated annually to its housing budget, and each home costs $10 to develop, and rental for tenants is $0.50 every year (a generously high rate actually). Assuming that

    a) building homes is instantaneous,
    b) homes are 100% occupied,
    c) rental money is completely reinvested to build new homes,
    d) there is no cost to the government to maintain homes,
    e) the government budget is always $1000, and
    f) there is an infinite supply of land.

    the figures would look like this:

    Y1: 100 families housed, total rent for the year: $50.
    Y2: 205 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $102.50.
    Y3: 315.3 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $157.63.
    ....
    Y25: 4772.7 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $2386.35.
    Y26: 5111.35 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $2555.67.
    Y27: 5466.91 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $2733.46.

    and so on so forth.

    Keeping the above assumptions, let's now assume that:

    a) the government instead sells the homes immediately at 50% of its development cost upon the home's completion,
    b) money from the sales are completely reinvested to build new homes,
    c) capital gains tax, stamp duty and other land taxes on subsequent sales of homes are not factored into this situation;

    the figures would look like this

    Y1: 100 families housed, total sales for the year: $500.
    Y2: 250 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $750.
    Y3: 425 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $875.
    ...
    Y25: 4800 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $1000.
    Y26: 5000 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $1000.
    Y27: 5200 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $1000.

    Hence we can all see that on this predictive model, it will take 26 years for a "build housing to rent" strategy to outstrip the "build housing to sell" strategy.

    However, there are some things to note about my example:

    a) it takes far longer than a year to build a home and get it occupied;
    b) 5% of the home's development price as annual rent for social housing seems a bit high;
    c) the $1000 budget is hypothetical, and a larger budget would allow the "build housing to rent" strategy to outstrip the "build housing to sell" strategy quicker (but not by much): with a $10000 budget, the "build housing to rent" strategy will only outstrip "build housing to sell" strategy after 19 years.

    Given the current housing crisis, I think the current focus on building more affordable homes for sale is clearly the better option.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The problem with social housing is not just about demand/supply, but also cash flow and the urgency of the housing problem.

    Let's say the government has $1000 allocated annually to its housing budget, and each home costs $10 to develop, and rental for tenants is $0.50 every year (a generously high rate actually). Assuming that

    a) building homes is instantaneous,
    b) homes are 100% occupied,
    c) rental money is completely reinvested to build new homes,
    d) there is no cost to the government to maintain homes,
    e) the government budget is always $1000, and
    f) there is an infinite supply of land.

    the figures would look like this:

    Y1: 100 families housed, total rent for the year: $50.
    Y2: 205 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $102.50.
    Y3: 315.3 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $157.63.
    ....
    Y25: 4772.7 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $2386.35.
    Y26: 5111.35 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $2555.67.
    Y27: 5466.91 families housed cumulatively, total rent for the year: $2733.46.

    and so on so forth.

    Keeping the above assumptions, let's now assume that:

    a) the government instead sells the homes immediately at 50% of its development cost upon the home's completion,
    b) money from the sales are completely reinvested to build new homes,
    c) capital gains tax, stamp duty and other land taxes on subsequent sales of homes are not factored into this situation;

    the figures would look like this

    Y1: 100 families housed, total sales for the year: $500.
    Y2: 250 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $750.
    Y3: 425 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $875.
    ...
    Y25: 4800 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $1000.
    Y26: 5000 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $1000.
    Y27: 5200 families housed cumulatively, total sales for the year: $1000.

    Hence we can all see that on this predictive model, it will take 26 years for a "build housing to rent" strategy to outstrip the "build housing to sell" strategy.

    However, there are some things to note about my example:

    a) it takes far longer than a year to build a home and get it occupied;
    b) 5% of the home's development price as annual rent for social housing seems a bit high;
    c) the $1000 budget is hypothetical, and a larger budget would allow the "build housing to rent" strategy to outstrip the "build housing to sell" strategy quicker (but not by much): with a $10000 budget, the "build housing to rent" strategy will only outstrip "build housing to sell" strategy after 19 years.

    Given the current housing crisis, I think the current focus on building more affordable homes for sale is clearly the better option.
    You have a point. What I am focusing at though is the need for labour to move more easier from location to location. For example if there is a cleaner job in London paying £6.70 a hour and the cost of a B&B room is £30 a night then a worker has little to no incentive to travel long distances and take work in a distant location. The worker would get £242 a week minus £210 B&B housing cost per week leaving just £32 a week for a whole weeks work. Most workers would be better off on the dole. This is why we need a social housing alternative.

    In China for the past 10 years there has been a huge migration of workers moving from rural areas to city areas. Factories understand that these workers need a roof over their head, a bed, some where to clean themselves and some where to relax. This is why there are dozens of dormitories in China. Its part of their economic miracle. Now in the UK we don't have big manufacturing corporations so we need a social infrastructure project that will allow the same kind of worker migration rates as big cities like Shenzhen have.

    When working class people are given security they are often flock to places that give them a opportunity to make something of themselves. Another great example is North Dakota natural gas boom in the US. It has the similar dormitories as China.

    This can be done under a state social program though.

    For example all people would need is a room the size of a shipping container. 1 Bed, a desk and chair, a small kitchen and a en-suite bathroom. No frills accommodation.

    The policy would be workers would have to work over 35 hours a week and must be below a certain income threshold.

    What we need in this country is infrastructure to harness that desire for people to literally search up and down the country for work. Job Seekers shouldn't be just looking around a 30-50 mile radius for work. They should be looking nationally. And with the infrastructure in place offering low cost rooms there is a incentvie for people to move to areas they aren't familiar with and work hard until they can afford to either rent in the private sector or buy their own home.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 20, 2015
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.