Social Housing

[DaveR]

"London is often cited as a brilliant example of how different social strata live alongside each other and, generally, get along.

The dangers of "ghetto-isation" where, essentially, the inner city becomes for the rich only whilst the poor are restricted to a sort of donut-ring outer can be seen clearly across the Channel where Paris has this exact model. It causes social unrest and an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" tendency.

Whilst the need for affordable housing is important I'm not sure it should be at the expense of social cohesion."

I understand the principle - the question I pose is what is the actual answer in terms of hard cash? If you are saying that the balance is right now, what's your evidence? Could inner london boroughs sell off, for example all of the properties they currently own that are worth more than 150% of the regional median (so more conservative than the proposal), and reinvest in cheaper alternatives, without sacrificing London's famous social cohesion (much in evidence during last year's riots)? And what about the social division that arises from people thinking (rightly or wrongly) that social housing tenants get an easy life at their expense?

The point made by the report is that there is a real, measurable cost to keeping expensive housing in public ownership, which calls for an examination beyond bare assertion of the justification for it.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Please don't banish me to an outer Paris ring. I quite like it where I am.

[DJKillaQueen]

'The point made by the report is that there is a real, measurable cost to keeping expensive housing in public ownership, which calls for an examination beyond bare assertion of the justification for it.'

Like the apartments at Westminster? Buckingham Palace? There are countless properties owned by the state maintained at the expense of the taxpayer....let's sell them all off to private investors.

I do think that we've lost the moral principle at the core of this issue to a debate around the 'commodity' that housing has become. At the end of the day, no person should be struggling to find a suitable place to live, and even though we can debate definitions of 'suitable', for most people that's a dry home, in fair enough repair with enough rooms to accomodation those being accomodated. If we want to persist with a housing market with prices that are increasingly beyond the reach of many in full time work (before we even get started on those without jobs) then we have to accept we need to provide housing they can afford, irregardless of what it does to the 'market'. Housing, like food and water is a necessity....and it's about time some people atarted to remember that.

[DaveR]

The whole point of the report is that if you exchange housing in expensive areas for cheaper areas you end up with more. Housing is a commodity, like food and water, and the public are best served by having the most efficient system for public housing. To the extent that there is a moral aspect to it, surely that's it?

[DJKillaQueen]

I absolutely agree on the efficiency point, but there is no sense in the reports proposal if the right to buy scheme continues. And I share H's sceptical view on the impact the proposal would have, but for different reasons. There is absoutely no way that the sale of a few higher value properties will address the affordable housing shortage, or quickly enough. Homes take time to build. On the other hand, there are countless empty properties around London that could be used to address the housing shortage if LAs had the powers to force the owners to bring them into affordable use.

And on another point, it is absolutely a false economy to use welfare reform etc to further squeeze the level of property available to low income housholds. The consequence of that is LAs being forced to house more families in B&B accomodation.....and if you take a look at how expensive an option that is then you really do have something to complain about.

[Jeremy]

Also, I don't think this only involves swapping expensive areas for cheaper ones. It should also involve swapping desirable, large, period properties, for modern buildings that are cheaper to maintain.

[LondonMix]

Anyone see this in the FT today:

"A review of housing policy this week is expected to propose that the present obligation on developers to build affordable houses should be scaled back."-- last paragraph in the article.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3ef55a2-ea9c-11e1-ba49-00144feab49a.html#axzz24IBEH5Iw

I agree with the comments that ghettos should not be formed. Perhaps a policy that said expesnive homes should be sold off only of there is land in the area that can be developed? The savings would largely come from period properties being sold (which still sell for a premium) and developing new builds or using the money to make other vacant properties in the area habitable again. There is a balance in most parts of London that I imagine can be struck.

[Ridgley]

Heading right back to the Victorian days, of ghettos where the poorest people will be forced to live until that area is gentrified and yet again they forced to move on because they can no longer afford to live where they were brought up in areas like the following.

? Clapham Common

? Battersea

? Brixton

? Kennington

? Oval

[????]

yeah but ridgley, post war most/much of the original white working class population of London couldn't wait to get out of the inner city for a variety of reasons. eg from the East End to Essex rather than 'forced to move on'. That was true of some of the older residents of ED when I moved here in the early 90s, thought it was a righ shithole many 9not all) of them and thought the new 'yuppie' arrivals were mad!.

[DaveR]

"Heading right back to the Victorian days, of ghettos where the poorest people will be forced to live until that area is gentrified and yet again they forced to move on because they can no longer afford to live where they were brought up in areas like the following.

? Clapham Common

? Battersea

? Brixton

? Kennington

? Oval"

Up and down the country there are lots of people who, for various reasons, can't afford to live where they grew up. Should they receive a public subsidy so that they can?

[Jeremy]

I know, it kind of irritates me when people complain about not being able to afford to live where they grew up.

Just because your parents could afford a house in a certain area, why does that give you an entitlement to own a house there too?

[DJKillaQueen]

And also, it is part of the natural evolution of anywhere for change to happen. If you look at the social history of say the past 150 years (or since the advent of the industrial revolution) streets, towns, cities, regions etc have gone through cycles lasting 20-30 years or so. I would argue that in the sftermath of the devastation of WWII, an effort was made to stabilise everything, in the idea that a fresh start meant being able to create a new utopia (part of which was jobs for life, guaranteed pensions), the perfect society where all can be taken care of whilst others prosper. It was always going to be a tall order, and perhaps all that has really happened is that we've sunk back into the natural order of things (from a captalist economic perspective).

[Lowlander]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I know there already council properties in

> > Bloomsbury, Kensington, Chelsea, Notting Hill,

> and

> > all sorts of expensive areas. I just meant that

> > while it's not realistic to build new council

> > accomodation in prime central London locations,

> > neither should they all be stuck in places like

> > East Ham or Thamesmead. There's a balance to be

> > struck.

> >

> > I guess the "sensible distribution" would be

> > primarily numerical, but would also depend on

> > things like available land, current density of

> > population, infrastructure, green space, etc.

>

> I agree entirely with Jeremy on this one.

>

> London is often cited as a brilliant example of

> how different social strata live alongside each

> other and, generally, get along.

>

> The dangers of "ghetto-isation" where,

> essentially, the inner city becomes for the rich

> only whilst the poor are restricted to a sort of

> donut-ring outer can be seen clearly across the

> Channel where Paris has this exact model. It

> causes social unrest and an "out-of-sight,

> out-of-mind" tendency.

>

> Whilst the need for affordable housing is

> important I'm not sure it should be at the expense

> of social cohesion.

Look at Edinburgh, classic example of a heritage city surrounded by housing schemes (although more like a donut with a big bite taken out as the sea's in the way)

[baroldmc]

Anyone who is a supporter of social housing would not wish to see

a sort of gentrification of areas and properties at the expense of

the social tenants. This is likely if the more expensive properties

become what housing associations (HAs) call disposals.

In fact, HAs are committed to policies of social inclusion and

the fostering of mixed communities.

A compromise, of course, is to steer social tenants towards

shared ownership schemes, even in the case of the more expensive properties

If there is a need for much more social housing, it is partly caused by

clogging; many tenants stay put for ever due to

the lack of initiatives on offer to encourage them to move

on into the private sector

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmmm....most tenants stay put because they can't afford to move out to be honest. When Tenants do find themselves in a position to buy something, it's usually the social home they live in or part buy schemes.

Personally I am against shared ownerships schemes because I think they are another device designed to keep property prices high in the absence of first time buyers. If you look at the evolution of the housing market over the past three decades you will see a direct relationship between availability of first time buyers and products offered by mortgage lenders. It's a process that began with cheaper interest rates and larger salary x loans...moving to interest only mortgages...to finally self certified mortgages. We are heading for a crisis with interest only mortgages as some of those first to buy them are coming to the end of their mortgage period with no means to pay back the capital for the intitial purchase.