| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk...block-13234068
Emergency aside, basically she's raising the notion of paying a high price for a particular place to live when someone else is getting it for free.
Should social housing be provided in the more affluent and desireable areas? Must point out, I'm not advocating either way just raising the question.
People are going to shite all over this Donna woman but I totally understand where she's coming from, as harsh as it sounds.
For too long the idea of 'mixed communities' meant nothing more than introducing owner occupied homes (through infill and sales) to popular Council estates. I always advocated the flip side of that - getting more Council homes into traditional owner occupied areas. I think it is the right and fair way to remove stigmatised ghettos and to ensure that there is equality of access to health and education.
The flats in this block that were bought by the City of London are now 'social housing' units. They don't have acccess to all the services that come with paying the service charge, but as many of the comments say below the story, there is every chance the Council tenants rehoused there after this appalling tragedy work as hard if not harder than the lucky residents who are now complaining.
We may be a country divided by poverty/wealth, gender, geography and age - but it doesn't have to be that way. It will be interesting to see how long the rehoused survivors of Grenfell continue to live alongside their new neighbours - or whether they will be forced or encouraged to move out after a 'decent interval'.
Of course she has a point, you must be blind to not be able to see it
New build estate have to have a certain % of " affordable housing " these days anyway
I find it crazy though, i know people will disagree with me, but hey ho
I Clean the show homes on a new build estate, the site is just finishing this month, anyways, prices start at just over £400 K, which isnt loose change
so you pay just under £400,000 for your new home, you are well pleased, its a cracking house, then at the rear of you ( a shared rear fence, which i can imagine Tommy, Tyson and Danny will be booting a football against not stop soon enough ) , you have social housing moving in at the same time as you, who arrive, the old washing machine doesnt work as they plug it in, it gets left on the driveway for 3 months, it is only moved ( to the front lawn ) when the old banger car breaks down and gets left on the drive on blocks while bloke of the house finds a mate down the boozer to fix it ( it'll be good for Tommy, Tyson and Danny to watch the geezer from the boozer work on the car, it might inspire them to want to be a mechanicevery situation has a plus eh )
who does that situation please ? ? ? the new 400 K home owners ? ? ? the affordable home family who dont really care about much ? ?? or anyone ? ? ?
and before anyone says " that situation of the washing machine and car would never happen ", i have worked on council / housing association homes for years, it does happen
Why does Donna think it matters to anyone if she decides to move out or not?
Because Donna is entitled to an opinion and to express it. As you have just done.Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
I know what you mean mate, I once had a window cleaner move in next to me, and he totally lowered the tone of the neighbourhood!Of course she has a point, you must be blind to not be able to see it
New build estate have to have a certain % of " affordable housing " these days anyway
I find it crazy though, i know people will disagree with me, but hey ho
I Clean the show homes on a new build estate, the site is just finishing this month, anyways, prices start at just over £400 K, which isnt loose change
so you pay just under £400,000 for your new home, you are well pleased, its a cracking house, then at the rear of you ( a shared rear fence, which i can imagine Tommy, Tyson and Danny will be booting a football against not stop soon enough ) , you have social housing moving in at the same time as you, who arrive, the old washing machine doesnt work as they plug it in, it gets left on the driveway for 3 months, it is only moved ( to the front lawn ) when the old banger car breaks down and gets left on the drive on blocks while bloke of the house finds a mate down the boozer to fix it ( it'll be good for Tommy, Tyson and Danny to watch the geezer from the boozer work on the car, it might inspire them to want to be a mechanic
who does that situation please ? ? ? the new 400 K home owners ? ? ? the affordable home family who dont really care about much ? ?? or anyone ? ? ?
and before anyone says " that situation of the washing machine and car would never happen ", i have worked on council / housing association homes for years, it does happen
they can do that, especially if they have a white van, it seems people hate them white vans
I think some credit should go to the decesion makers who provided these housing units at such short notice, at least they have a chance of a different life now away from those awful tower block environments, which originate from decades of housing demand within our major cities, because they experience very high levels of migration, both legally and illegally.
That somebody shouldn't get something for free that you pay for?
I indirectly pay for schools, I have no kids and there is a decent chance I never will. Should I be pissed off?
I stopped listening at 00.36 because at 0.33 this exchange occurred.
Resident: "Our Council Tax bill is very, very high."
Presenter: "Oh, I know."
The truth is Kensington and Chelsea's Council Tax bands are very, very affordable.
Council tax rates for Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2017/18
Band*2016/17 2017/18
A £695.20 £708.01
B £811.07 £826.01
C £926.93 £944.02
D £1,042.80 £1,062.02
That can't be right Mr Morgan, surely, unless you are talking about monthly payments?
I live on a council estate in Cwmbran and I pay over £1,100.00 a year.
https://www.kfh.co.uk/west-london/ke...gh/council-tax
Kensington & Chelsea is not run by the welsh Government.
got to be monthly
just spoke my brother who lives in london, he pays about £175 a month in council tax, his service charge on the flat brings it upto about £550, so that amount is a annual amount
Many years ago I bought a house on a well known private estate in Cardiff. All of the houses were privately owned until a few years later the City Council started buying up houses that came on the market in order to house "social" tenants. For me that is when my nightmare started. The "social" neighbours next door were a nightmare. Rowing throughout the day and night, loud music and kids running riot climbing all over my property and garden. When I asked politely if the music could be toned down I was told to F.... Off and to mind my own F...ing business. Once I told the kids that they might fall through my asbestos garage roof and the abuse I received was unmentionable. I had cars parked in my parking space directly outside my garage which leaked oil all over the place. Neighbours in the vicinity frequently told me that they were glad they did not live in my house and started to put up their own houses for sale to the Council as they were afraid the same would happen to them. Eventually I was forced out as I could not stand living there and got far less for my house than I was hoping. I can only speak from personal experience but since that time I have maintained that mixing social and private housing does not always work for reasons other than satisfying the politically correct.
Wonder how she'd feel if it was HER block that was burnt out and she had to live in a council block?
Thick c*ntgot to be monthly
and you look so smart with your insults
To give my thoughts on the original question because it has been almost entirely ignored.
This is clearly an unexpected and unusual situation and for that reason unlikely to be replicated in the sense that councils are not going to go around buying expensive buildings and turning them into social housing, it just doesn't make sense.
It probably isn't productive to have large areas where ordinary people are completely priced out of the market but this ship has already sailed unfortunately. As a country we push home ownership to an obsessive level yet we have found ourselves sleepwalking into a situation where, in lots of different parts of the country, wages simply do not allow it if you want to live anywhere near where you work. I live in an town where a single teacher/fireman/policeman/nurse would be unlikely to find themselves in the position to buy a one bedroom flat, that wage:property price ratio is a complete killer.
And it's all down to simple economics. Supply and demand.
Supply has been strangled by the ridiculous planning system we have whilst we gave seen demand go through the roof.
Prices will continue to increase as the balance between supply and demand remains as it is. The planning system needs to be sorted out to allow development to happen, whilst there is little that can be done about demand as the population continues to increase.
Simple economics.
I feel like there is hesitancy from those in charge because they don't want to destabilise our massively inflated housing market. All governments seem to make the right noises on building houses and then fail to achieve it, maybe they don't want to. It can't all be down to planning 'red tape'
Planning is an absolute nightmare but housing developers can't really increase their output drastically. There's not enough tradesmen to handle the extra houses
I'm afraid it's not that simple a model as the causes of demand side are due to irresponsible lending and possibly money laundering which the government sanctioned by their policies.
When we used to apply for a mortgage the responsible lending limit was based on your salary, and if you were in a partnership then their salary was also included. So the banks would lend you either 3 times the highest salary, or 2.5 times the combined salary for joint mortgage applications. Your mortgage was typically an "endowment" type, whereby each month you agreed to pay the interest on the principal lent amount, but also you would save money into an investment vehicle in the hope that, when the mortgage term is up, you'd have enough saved to pay the initial lien. The second popular mortgage type is the repayment type where you pay of both an element of original loan and also the interest on the loan until the lending term is up.
The "endowment" mortgage type was discredited after many investors did not save enough or found they were sold policies that did not return enough to pay the capital loan. The next generation of home owners used this problem to their advantage, taking out "interest only" mortgage loans with (as far as I can tell speaking with many of these financially illiterate) little intention of paying the loan off via saving into a separate investment vehicle. As this new irresponsible (not illegal) lending exploded in the late 90's so started the housing boom. This only served those people who had a foot on the housing ladder...and therefore by definition "all boats did not rise on the same tide". The people that bought houses at that time, including from right-to-buy social housing stock, which not only depleted the stock but turn traditional working class voters into now more affluent upwardly mobile and, soon to be, new Tory voters. This was Thatcher's master stroke.
The property boom continues. The people are elated (those who now have a mortgage) as they are grateful to be "homeowners".
Irresponsible lending, which led to more irresponsible lending (subprime loans) and another short-term economic boom. It's easy to loan more money if you have an existing loan it seems, regardless of your ability to pay....and this leads us to the '08 crash. The supply side of easy money to Joe Public was eagerly pumped into property...with the risk takers buying second and third properties to flip or more typically rent them out. The removal of housing stock by these coupon cutting speculators did much to drive the price of houses beyond reasonable pricing (based on the old safe 3 x salary limits) for new home owners who at this stage are taking out 5x, 6x salary interest only mortgages...putting themselves not only into a massive financial prison but trapping themselves in the prison when demand dries up and they go into negative equity.
The Keynesian model discredited in favour of monetarist policy. Monetary theory perverted to bail out the banks...print more currency into existence out of nothing...reduce interest rates to effectively negative rates once inflation (inflation is effectively a central bank tax) is considered...pay off one debt by taking out another loan. In other words keep the party going at any cost....companies can save money and pass that saving onto the consumer by way of increasing competition and how??? by shipping jobs to India and China. People love Asda as it's sooo cheap. Never asking why that is.
People used to have savings accounts you know, with money in them and everything. I bet that there is not more than a few people on here, me included, that have more than one months outgoings saved. We are mostly a hand to mouth spent up husk of a economic force now...and then there's Brexit. The biggest lie sold to the British in some time, but I digress.
This is only my view which some may agree with and others will decry as nonsense, which will all go to show the model as you can see is far from simple. Basic "supply and demand" does not answer all the questions as the forces behind those supply and demand factors are far more powerful and complex.
once again we have a thread that raises a political issue and once again we have those on both sides who display the usual lack of empathy for considering the alternative.
without a doubt this is a devastating human tragedy and something in the short term had to be done. However, I cannot see how longer term housing social tenants in such a block is going to create anything other than enmity from the majority of those who have paid inordinate amounts of money (and continue to do so). Clearly they bought the property on the basis it was a private residence and would expect to continue ownership under those circumstances.
for those that say that 20% of all new build must be social housing. This is correct, but by and large developers build the social housing aspect away from the main development so that the private/social mix isn't always there. clearly this is an abuse of the intended purpose of the policy but it is the only way social housing can be built.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote