-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Feedy,
We are talking about social housing stock here.
If you replace social housing at 20% then for every 5 sold, stock depletes by 4.
Just because overall house figures go up, does not mean these houses become accessible to people who can't afford their own home or high rent prices.
The waiting list is growing that should tell you something
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 14:06
Feedy,
the fact is the housing stock has risen and the need for social housing has fallen. I can't see why that is a bad policy
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 14:48
Feedy,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 14:06
We are talking about social housing stock here.
4. I'm interested to know how you come to be a bastion of this scheme as we all know you detest handouts from the state. What do you call a massive discount on a house from the state if it isn't a handout? I'd also be interested to know if you would support the government giving someone who lives in social housing a 20k deposit to buy a non-social housing home, because thats essentially what is happening here.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Kiffa
1. I don't disagree that social housing decreases in stock, what I'm saying is the demand for housing reduces by a greater amount.
2. I've asked for evidence of this in the past, do you have any.
3. The figures were illustrative only to show that social housing being built increases the housing stock overall.
4. I'm ambivalent to RTB. I'm trying to understand why a policy that reduces demand overall is seen as a bad thing.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Jon,
I note you have chosen to ignore my last post.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10
It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32
The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/homer.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39
It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10
The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32
Yeah it sucks for me
You really struggle in terms of being s human don't you?
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:45
It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39
The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10
Yeah it sucks for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32
So would I.
Spam won't get in the way of a difference of opinion, or a response to a provocative challenge on this MB http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39
It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10
The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32
Yeah it sucks for me
If jon is correct then this policy build more social housing without any cost to the taxpayer. I can't see why that would be a bad policy if true.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:36
Jon,
That is what the allegations were in the sample links I provided. The most relevant were from less than 2 years ago - not 4 or 5 years ago. It became a major issue for the coalition government (Tory ministers in the lead) in late 2013, and it was a pre-election campaign target for Labour and the LibDems. By that time the Tories had reverted to their preferred script of attacking planning rules (the libertarian wing of the Tories anyway - the other wing love planning when they get into NIMBY mode), but they didn't challenge the other parties.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 08:12
It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39
The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10
Yeah it sucks for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32
So would I.
It is a policy that is expensive, unfair, irrational and perverse. But you and Croesy like it.... http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Jon
what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
Jon
Apparently not.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:57
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...
of course there is - is there any chance of answering the question? why do you think developers don't develop and leave land fallow?
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
Jon
Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...
let me put it another way, if there was no demand for housing the need for contractors would be low and the market rates to employ them would be low. If the developers were awash with cash they'd make use of this fact and build the properties whilst the cost base was low. The fact they don't do that and wait for the market to pick up is testament to the fact they aren't cash rich and can only develop when there is a need to do so.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:44
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40
what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?
I've just answered it. They aren't happy with the return they expect to make by developing immediately.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:47
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:44
what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40
Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
there is no need to try and explain NPV to me and when companies will use it, I'm pretty comfortable with the financial viability of projects over time.
By the way, most corporate developers will have an IRR of around 12% which is greater than current (and historic) house price inflation meaning they erode their ROI over time by land banking.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:00
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:47
what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:44
Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40
there is no need to try and explain NPV to me and when companies will use it, I'm pretty comfortable with the financial viability of projects over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55
You're not answering the question that I am asking of Jon (and you if you like) - why would companies keep land fallow?
I suppose that is why the top 5 builders, who deliver 35% of total UK supply of new housing, have 12 years of UK total annual supply (at current rates) in their land banks
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere... http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
You haven't got a clue have you fella http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 16:27
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/legacy.php?t=g...8054&private=0
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue sky wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 18:13
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 16:27
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 18:23
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue sky wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 18:13
Or we could accept all of the nonsense you have spouted in this thread without questioning it. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 18:23
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue sky wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 18:13
Can you explain how a policy that builds more social houses whilst reduces the demand for social housing at the same time is a bad policy?
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 16:27
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
So it is feasible that they COULD be holding onto land due to a lack of resources/manpower that other developers could be building on RIGHT NOW?
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Doesn't stop you, care to explain...
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:42
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere...
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
I haven't the time right now.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:45
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:42
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere...
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
That gateau will still be there in 5 minutes.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:47
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:45
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:42
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere...
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:49
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:47
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:45
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:42
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere...
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
You haven't got a clue have you fella
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
Doesn't stop you, care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
I haven't the time right now.
So busy huh?
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:54
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:49
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:47
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:45
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere...
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:42
You haven't got a clue have you fella
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
Doesn't stop you, care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
I haven't the time right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:12
About to be http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif LAST DAY AWAY, for a few weeks anyway http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:57
the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:54
why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:49
it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:47
I would imagine it takes a lot less time and effort to buy a piece of land than to build 500 houses on it. You surely cannot be saying that it isn't feasible that developers might buy land because it is a good time to buy but not develop because their efforts are concentrated elsewhere...
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:45
You haven't got a clue have you fella
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 22:42
Doesn't stop you, care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 17:54
I haven't the time right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 15:08
Glad the tent has held up.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 19:33
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 18:23
How many times do you need it to be explained? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Thu, 11 June 2015 00:54
I'm not saying anything of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 19:33
You can't say it's a bad policy because the total number of social houses decrease when the demand for social housing decreases by a greater amount. The net effect is a reduction in demand which is the purpose of a housing policy.
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
I have said why I'm against it several times, and in detail.
You haven't bothered to respond to my reasons - just keep on repeating your ill-informed and patronising opinion all based on the view that if a single new home is built after a sale then the RTB policy must be good.
I have explained that it is expensive, inefficient and unfair. It raises costs for Councils, Council tenants, private tenants and taxpayers. It gives a windfall discount to a few at the expense of the many.
We need more Council homes not fewer.
If there is public money to spend (although I have said the cost of the discount falls mainly on Council tenants through a hit on the Housing revenue Account of Councils), it would be better spent on building more affordable homes of the size and in the location that they are needed.
Got it now?
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif
-
Re: Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.
Jon
You are making statements but you're not backing them up with evidence. You have claimed many things but you are coming at this from your ideological angle where you are opposed to anything the Tories come up with. You claim it is expensive but this policy removes the maintenance costs of each house from the public purse. The taxpayer isn't having to pay any cash towards the subsidy - it is an opportunity cost based on what a similar property would achieve on the open market. The fact is the government/councils have probably already paid for the build of the property and any finance to go with it over the many years before RTB.
The undeniable fact is that this policy meant for every 5 homes sold 1 new home was built. In simple terms this means that we have more homes at the end that we did at the start. Considering the same people are living in the homes sold - there is no change in occupier just a change in ownership - then this policy creates new homes for those that need it. I've given numerical examples to explain how this alleviates the housing shortage yet you dismiss this aspect as being inconsequential. The purpose of a housing policy is to create homes for people to live in.
Even if this policy were expensive to the taxpayer you need to consider we are told continuously by certain factions on the left that we shouldn't view life through a spreadsheet or balance sheet and we should actually consider communities and people. so we have a situation which allows properties to be built for those that need it and you object because it costs the taxpayer money - you couldn't make this hypocrisy up.
Your aversion to this policy is dogma and nothing more.
