Since the Tories came in , rough sleepers on the streets has doubled

[Feedback]

This is feedback posting under another name , it's the same nonsense he used to come out with

The right to buy has led to a council that previously had 10000 properties in the cycle to be available to rent ......to now only having 5000

And those which are left are of lesser quality as all the nice ones have been sold

Hence a greater demand for fewer houses , of poorer quality

What part of this don't you understand

Why do you think almost all the council houses in cowbridge have been sold and very few on the colcot estate in Barry have been bought ?

Sludge

You've not changed the demand for social housing and you haven't changed the supply. If you sell 5000 houses you have reduced the stock by 5000 but you have also reduced the demand by 5000.

[Feedback]

We had a monster thread a few years ago on the Right To Buy and how it reduced access to housing for the worst off and crippled Council housing budgets whilst giving a huge subsidy to the best off tenants. Feedback was all over it and we must have covered every myth and fact possible. This one is just like Groundhog Day.

I remember the thread. It's the same as this - you dress up your opinion as fact.

I asked the question many times previously and it was never answered. How does changing the legal title owner of a property impact the overall requirement for housing?

The issue appears to be not the fact the houses were sold off (as this makes no change to overall supply or demand), but the fact promises were made to restock social housing and these werent always kept.

[dembethewarrior]

Politics board for this one then....was nice trying to discuss homelessness while it lasted.

[Eric Cartman]

Politics board for this one then....was nice trying to discuss homelessness while it lasted.

I am surprised it has lasted 5 pages without being moved tbh

[Feedback]

Politics board for this one then....was nice trying to discuss homelessness while it lasted.

Isn't homelessness a serious political issue. There has always been homelessness, even in far left economies such as the USSR.

As long as man has lived in cities (starting with the sumerians) we have always had homelessness. It is a surprise that in a modern advanced economy that it exists but this isn't a new phenomenon and isn't unique to capitalist economies as some would have you believe.

[Nick]

Politics board for this one then....was nice trying to discuss homelessness while it lasted.

It was always a political post given the title of the thread.

[Eric Cartman]

I remember the thread. It's the same as this - you dress up your opinion as fact.

I asked the question many times previously and it was never answered. How does changing the legal title owner of a property impact the overall requirement for housing?

The issue appears to be not the fact the houses were sold off (as this makes no change to overall supply or demand), but the fact promises were made to restock social housing and these werent always kept.

It changed the way people viewed housing.

I really like the idea of these schemes where the value of the property is forever linked to the average wage of the local area. Should allow people to live in a nice house/flat but doesn't screw the next generation over and crucially allows people to live and work in roughly the same place.

[joecity]

Goon news - The UK built more than 200,000 new homes for the first time since the financial crisis, with an increase in numbers every year since 2012.

http://www.cityam.com/275871/uk-buil...rst-time-since

Sludge

You've not changed the demand for social housing and you haven't changed the supply. If you sell 5000 houses you have reduced the stock by 5000 but you have also reduced the demand by 5000.

Only for those who can afford to but isn't it? I might be missing something.

[Feedback]

It changed the way people viewed housing.

I really like the idea of these schemes where the value of the property is forever linked to the average wage of the local area. Should allow people to live in a nice house/flat but doesn't screw the next generation over and crucially allows people to live and work in roughly the same place.

It sounds like a good idea and I'm pretty sure that's how it was when the supply chain was local. Nowadays with a more global supply chain building new stock within the confines of the local wage would drive down standards in lower wage areas.

[Nick]

It changed the way people viewed housing.

I really like the idea of these schemes where the value of the property is forever linked to the average wage of the local area. Should allow people to live in a nice house/flat but doesn't screw the next generation over and crucially allows people to live and work in roughly the same place.

It matters not if a house is built in the north of Blaenau Gwent or in Cyncoed, the cost of building the house will be exactly the same. The land value will be different, yes, but not the build cost.

[Feedback]

Only for those who can afford to but isn't it? I might be missing something.

There will be no change to the numbers needing housing or to the numbers of houses overall. You have only changed the legal title holder.

If there were 10000 people needing a home before the sell off there would be 10000 needing a home after the sell off. Those who exercised RTB already had a house, so didn't form part of the demand for new housing

[jon1959]

I remember the thread. It's the same as this - you dress up your opinion as fact.

I asked the question many times previously and it was never answered. How does changing the legal title owner of a property impact the overall requirement for housing?

The issue appears to be not the fact the houses were sold off (as this makes no change to overall supply or demand), but the fact promises were made to restock social housing and these werent always kept.

I'm not going to re-run that old thread, but just for old times' sake:

I have given opinions and facts in the previous debate about Right To Buy. You have done the same. But in my opinion my facts are more relevant and my opinions are based on decades of experience of housing management, finance and attempts to improve and expand social housing stock in Sheffield. The issues are not much different anywhere else in the country - even where councils have sold or transferred most or all their stock to housing associations. It just makes it more difficult to meet housing need when there is no council housing left.

You asked a question in the past and it was answered. Many times. You just didn't like the answer. When a council home is sold under the Right To Buy a number of things follow. A rental stream to the council (for repairs, improvements and services) stops and is replaced by a massively discounted capital receipt that has restrictions on its future use applied. RTB disproportionately takes away the better homes which can no longer be relet when the current tenant leaves (if no succession or assignment), and leads to ghettoisation of tenants and remaining council homes. As RTB eats into the stock it reduces economies of scale for the council and makes it more expensive to manage and maintain what is left. It is a process that helps to make council homes a tenure of last resort rather than a tenure of choice as they were in the post-war decades up to the 1980s. You always come back with a simplistic numbers game that ignores the complexities of housing finance or the dynamics of housing supply and demand.

The failure to meet promises to replace RTB homes on a one-for-one basis is a major issue - but not the only one. The government has basically told councils they should do so but without the resources to make it happen. They have at least made it possible for councils to build again when the Self Financing Housing Revenue Account was introduced in 2010 in place of the previous subsidy system (where new build would have been penalised by central government reducing the annual settlement) - but councils still face tenants buying new-built homes under the RTB with subsidy at less than cost, and leaving the council with 60 years of capital repayments and no income! That is the biggest disincentive to building new homes and won't go away unless the RTB is abolished. They have also left in place the crazy requirement that any high value council homes sold will have the capital receipt ring-fenced, mostly to subsidise discounts for housing association RTB:

https://www.ft.com/content/47185f42-...e-8a339b6f2164

There is a government fetish for owner occupation that has the effect of crippling social (especially council) housing.

[dembethewarrior]

I am surprised it has lasted 5 pages without being moved tbh

Agree.

I get there is a political side to it, but when it gets like this it's time to give up.

[dembethewarrior]

It was always a political post given the title of the thread.

Evening sweetie.

Well pointed out..it was rather a mix in the early pages...nothing to hard...its now gone full tilt...not that hard to realise what I was getting at ya ****ing smart arse zzz

[Feedback]

I'm not going to re-run that old thread, but just for old times' sake:

I have given opinions and facts in the previous debate about Right To Buy. You have done the same. But in my opinion my facts are more relevant and my opinions are based on decades of experience of housing management, finance and attempts to improve and expand social housing stock in Sheffield. The issues are not much different anywhere else in the country - even where councils have sold or transferred most or all their stock to housing associations. It just makes it more difficult to meet housing need when there is no council housing left.

You asked a question in the past and it was answered. Many times. You just didn't like the answer. When a council home is sold under the Right To Buy a number of things follow. A rental stream to the council (for repairs, improvements and services) stops and is replaced by a massively discounted capital receipt that has restrictions on its future use applied. RTB disproportionately takes away the better homes which can no longer be relet when the current tenant leaves (if no succession or assignment), and leads to ghettoisation of tenants and remaining council homes. As RTB eats into the stock it reduces economies of scale for the council and makes it more expensive to manage and maintain what is left. It is a process that helps to make council homes a tenure of last resort rather than a tenure of choice as they were in the post-war decades up to the 1980s. You always come back with a simplistic numbers game that ignores the complexities of housing finance or the dynamics of housing supply and demand.

The failure to meet promises to replace RTB homes on a one-for-one basis is a major issue - but not the only one. The government has basically told councils they should do so but without the resources to make it happen. They have at least made it possible for councils to build again when the Self Financing Housing Revenue Account was introduced in 2010 in place of the previous subsidy system (where new build would have been penalised by central government reducing the annual settlement) - but councils still face tenants buying new-built homes under the RTB with subsidy at less than cost, and leaving the council with 60 years of capital repayments and no income! That is the biggest disincentive to building new homes and won't go away unless the RTB is abolished. They have also left in place the crazy requirement that any high value council homes sold will have the capital receipt ring-fenced, mostly to subsidise discounts for housing association RTB:

https://www.ft.com/content/47185f42-...e-8a339b6f2164

There is a government fetish for owner occupation that has the effect of crippling social (especially council) housing.

I don't disagree with what you have written but you've not answered the question, which was how does changing legal title affect supply and demand? It doesnt.

You also ignore the cash inflow from selling stock which can be used to reinvest in public services elsewhere / pay off debt / so on.

Previously homeownership was the preserve of the rich, then the middle classes and then, due to this policy, the less well off. If this was a labour policy it would be lauded but since its a tory policy (and a thatcher one to boot), somehow aspiring to own your own home and policies to go with it is deemed wrong.

Getting to the crux of your complaint is not the sell off but the lack of building new stock. That's something that has affected all governments and isn't related to selling off stock at all, it's lack of investment and desire tomake things happen

[Nick]

Evening sweetie.

Well pointed out..it was rather a mix in the early pages...nothing to hard...its now gone full tilt...not that hard to realise what I was getting at ya ****ing smart arse zzz

I have no idea who you previously posted as on here but please give it a rest.

It’s too not to, as well.

[Tandy]

I have no idea who you previously posted as on here but please give it a rest.

It’s too not to, as well.

He has all the hallmarks of Vimana.
Sad Troll.

[joecity]

Agree.

I get there is a political side to it, but when it gets like this it's time to give up.

I will try again quoting a quote cause I seem to have Nick stuck in my quote box..No offence Nick.It is impossible as I see to discuss homelessnes or housing without it being political. Ideally for me mportant issues such as this would be handed over to non governmental and fully independent bodies that would build housing purely on need, population, future projections with protected budgets. That will never happen I suppose so a need will always be a political football.

[Feedback]

I have no idea who you previously posted as on here but please give it a rest.

It’s too not to, as well.

initials are DTW

[jon1959]

initials are DTW

Dr Tim Wuff ??

[Nick]

Dr Tim Wuff ??

Dogs bollocks

[joecity]

Why do you always assume a new poster is an old poster or a troll. This board got no future with that attitude. Getting pulled up on spelling names, trolling etc. Ooh comparing hallmarks..feck me seeing traits..Get a life n talk to the man or fekn ignore him look like dicks u choose.

[Nick]

Why do you always assume a new poster is an old poster or a troll. This board got no future with that attitude. Getting pulled up on spelling names, trolling etc. Ooh comparing hallmarks..feck me seeing traits..Get a life n talk to the man or fekn ignore him look like dicks u choose.

I’m assuming nothing. This poster has obviously posted previously and now changed name.

[joecity]

You will know better than me I thought hesaid he was a new poster. This board resembles a witches cauldron of old fecks staring into green bubbling bile sometimes asperctions cast on past postings. Who cares not me. I just look at whats written think about it n maybe answer it. I agree that Minion was out of order but I can't see much harm otherwise.

[Eric Cartman]

It matters not if a house is built in the north of Blaenau Gwent or in Cyncoed, the cost of building the house will be exactly the same. The land value will be different, yes, but not the build cost.

What is your point?

I am referring to schemes which sell a portion of a development at market value and a portion at an 'affordable' value linked to the local average wage - the one I saw coverage of was in London.