High Court blocks Tory plan to slash levy for affordable housing, well done Reading and West Berkshire Council! Options

[Andy Capp]

I doesn't come often from me, I know, but well done to our councils for not caving in to the government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...g-10439044.html

[On the edge]

Well spotted; it would be hard to disagree with your comments!

[Simon Kirby]

Well spotted; it would be hard to disagree with your comments!

Well here goes...

"Affordable housing" is a pointless humiliating funny-money scheme that distorts the market and does nothing to make housing more affordable, it just creates busy-work for our Big State functionaries. Better still to drop the whole nonsense, let the market set the price, and save ourselves the administration.

Housing is made affordable by:

1. Paying people enough, and
2. Building enough houses.

Key workers can't afford to live in the area they work? Fine, then let them move away, because if they really are so very "key" their employers will just need to pay them adequately.

[Andy Capp]

Well here goes...

"Affordable housing" is a pointless humiliating funny-money scheme that distorts the market and does nothing to make housing more affordable, it just creates busy-work for our Big State functionaries. Better still to drop the whole nonsense, let the market set the price, and save ourselves the administration.

Housing is made affordable by:

1. Paying people enough, and
2. Building enough houses.

The point is Simon, it was a comment regards the council not caving in, not about the politics of the issue. As for your argument: I see plenty of affordable housing schemes underpinned by government money so that they don't have to adopt policies which will devalue home-owners' investment.

If affordable housing didn't work, then it wouldn't exist.

Key workers can't afford to live in the area they work? Fine, then let them move away, because if they really are so very "key" their employers will just need to pay them adequately.

Which in turn will raise the value of the 'affordable homes' the previously low paid went to?

[Simon Kirby]

The point is Simon, it was a comment regards the council not caving in, not about the politics of the issue.

And I'm perhaps being a bit mean-spirited, but I would be more impressed if local government (our specifically, but generally too) challenged the housing crisis rather than defended their funding.

If affordable housing didn't work, then it wouldn't exist.

It works fine for the state apparatchiks, it just doesn't make housing "affordable".

Which in turn will raise the value of the 'affordable homes' the previously low paid went to?

It would find the market value, no more, no less. Point is, key workers would then be able to afford the market value because they would be paid the market rate for their job.

[Andy Capp]

It works fine for the state apparatchiks, it just doesn't make housing "affordable".

What you mean is, it doesn't make affordable housing less expensive, which is not quite the same thing.

It would find the market value, no more, no less.

Exactly, and there starts another housing bubble.

Point is, key workers would then be able to afford the market value because they would be paid the market rate for their job.

Or accept a lower standard of living (which is the more likely).


The point is, WBC are limited on what they can do NOW; your idealogical inspired vision is not going to deal with the issue now. In any case, as I said earlier, I was praising their victory, rather than the policy, which will always be contentious.

[MontyPython]

The point is Simon, it was a comment regards the council not caving in, not about the politics of the issue. ....

But what are their motives? Could it be that their colleagues at work, or indeed themselves, will benefit by being able to occupy said houses.

Social housing means that others that buy new houses have to pay more to subsidise those in what is termed "Key" jobs. Presumably who work in Tesco's are not classified as "key" what about public transport workers, employed mainly by the private sector? It really seemss to mean public sector workers.

What is really needed is Social Housing, and for this also to be available for single people.

[Andy Capp]

But what are their motives? Could it be that their colleagues at work, or indeed themselves, will benefit by being able to occupy said houses.

Social housing means that others that buy new houses have to pay more to subsidise those in what is termed "Key" jobs. Presumably who work in Tesco's are not classified as "key" what about public transport workers, employed mainly by the private sector? It really seemss to mean public sector workers.

What is really needed is Social Housing, and for this also to be available for single people.

Affordable housing is a loose term and can mean more than one type of home. This is not just purchase cost, it can also mean running costs. I personally see nothing wrong in a portion of my wages assisting people to live in association homes, if it means we have an inclusive society. The ethos Simon values is not one I care for.

[MontyPython]

Affordable housing is a loose term and can mean more than one type of home. This is not just purchase cost, it can also mean running costs. I personally see nothing wrong in a portion of my wages assisting people to live in association homes, if it means we have an inclusive society. The ethos Simon values is not one I care for.

I agree in helping provide association homes (or social housing) and expext Simon does too by the general opinions expressed in his postings.

What he and I object to is the subsidy of those purchasing a home by those who have struggled to fund their own, therby skewing the market. Shared ownership does not require subsidy!

[On the edge]

I have to say I resent contributing toward 'social housing' subsidy, for exactly the same reason I resent the tax credit system. Exactly as their forerunners, tied housing and the Speenhamland System kept workers poor and in their place, whilst Farmers grew ever richer, so the latest manifestations do the same. In effect both are subsidising poor wages (yes, poor 'benefit' rates too) whilst feeding the fat and greedy. Jolly nice of Johnny Sainsbury to have donated all that money to pay for an extension to an Art Gallery etc! Sadly, no political party has ever had the guts to tackle this greed so we are stuck with what we've got. I suppose 'social' housing doesn't create the ghetto stigma the old Council estates used to have applied to them, so that's a slight improvement.

[Simon Kirby]

I have to say I resent contributing toward 'social housing' subsidy, for exactly the same reason I resent the tax credit system. Exactly as their forerunners, tied housing and the Speenhamland System kept workers poor and in their place, whilst Farmers grew ever richer, so the latest manifestations do the same. In effect both are subsidising poor wages (yes, poor 'benefit' rates too) whilst feeding the fat and greedy. Jolly nice of Johnny Sainsbury to have donated all that money to pay for an extension to an Art Gallery etc!

Exactly so. It's repressive.

[Simon Kirby]

I agree in helping provide association homes (or social housing) and expext Simon does too by the general opinions expressed in his postings.

What he and I object to is the subsidy of those purchasing a home by those who have struggled to fund their own, therby skewing the market. Shared ownership does not require subsidy!

Precisely. I might be wrong, but in my view "affordable housing" does not achieve the social objective which AC believes it does. I like the objective - I believe people should be able to afford decent housing without the indignity of qualifying for some phoney-baloney handout.

[Simon Kirby]

The point is, WBC are limited on what they can do NOW; your logicically inspired vision is not going to deal with the issue now. In any case, as I said earlier, I was praising their victory, rather than the policy, which will always be contentious.

Fair enough.

[Andy Capp]

I agree in helping provide association homes (or social housing) and expext Simon does too by the general opinions expressed in his postings. What he and I object to is the subsidy of those purchasing a home by those who have struggled to fund their own, therby skewing the market. Shared ownership does not require subsidy!

We all subsides something, it the tax method. The great Tory house sell-off was a subsidy. Low mortgage rates is a form of a subsidy. I see nothing wrong in shared ownership.

I have to say I resent contributing toward 'social housing' subsidy, for exactly the same reason I resent the tax credit system. Exactly as their forerunners, tied housing and the Speenhamland System kept workers poor and in their place, whilst Farmers grew ever richer, so the latest manifestations do the same. In effect both are subsidising poor wages (yes, poor 'benefit' rates too) whilst feeding the fat and greedy. Jolly nice of Johnny Sainsbury to have donated all that money to pay for an extension to an Art Gallery etc! Sadly, no political party has ever had the guts to tackle this greed so we are stuck with what we've got. I suppose 'social' housing doesn't create the ghetto stigma the old Council estates used to have applied to them, so that's a slight improvement.

Further to my point above, I see things like the tax credits, et al. is an inducement for inward investment from big corporations and also an inducement to work.

Precisely. I might be wrong, but in my view "affordable housing" does not achieve the social objective which AC believes it does. I like the objective - I believe people should be able to afford decent housing without the indignity of qualifying for some phoney-baloney handout.

I don't believe it achieves the social objective, it is only that most other options that have been tabled appear not to either.

Just supply me with one example of an egalitarian country that subscribes to the Simon Kirby 'Tao', then might be persuaded.

[On the edge]

Further to my point above, I see things like the tax credits, et al. is an inducement for inward investment from big corporations and also an inducement to work.

Of course; that's how our masters see it! State supported exploitation; nothing new in that, after all we built our Empire on exactly those principles.

[Lolly]

I have never really understood why West Berkshire Council decided to join Reading Council in taking legal action on this issue because unlike Reading they didn't appear to have costed out the potential "loss" to the ratepayer.

The final paragraphs from the NWN article seem to confirm my concern:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15...uble-legal.html

When asked how much in contributions the council would have lost out on, spokeswoman Joanne Basset said: “This was more a matter of principle about delivering much-needed affordable housing, however the council estimated 23.5 per cent of affordable housing units would have been lost.”

I wonder how that compares to the amount of affordable housing "lost" due to claims by developers of viability issues? Not to mention the time & cost involved in assessing those viability claims, which I believe are (at the moment) usually with-held from public scrutiny because of commercial confidence.

[On the edge]

I have never really understood why West Berkshire Council decided to join Reading Council in taking legal action on this issue because unlike Reading they didn't appear to have costed out the potential "loss" to the ratepayer.

The final paragraphs from the NWN article seem to confirm my concern:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15...uble-legal.html

When asked how much in contributions the council would have lost out on, spokeswoman Joanne Basset said: “This was more a matter of principle about delivering much-needed affordable housing, however the council estimated 23.5 per cent of affordable housing units would have been lost.”

I wonder how that compares to the amount of affordable housing "lost" due to claims by developers of viability issues? Not to mention the time & cost involved in assessing those viability claims, which I believe are (at the moment) usually with-held from public scrutiny because of commercial confidence.

Well spotted! Ah well, back to bau then; just rub it and the chrome comes off!!!

[MontyPython]

I have never really understood why West Berkshire Council decided to join Reading Council in taking legal action on this issue because unlike Reading they didn't appear to have costed out the potential "loss" to the ratepayer.

The final paragraphs from the NWN article seem to confirm my concern:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15...uble-legal.html

When asked how much in contributions the council would have lost out on, spokeswoman Joanne Basset said: “This was more a matter of principle about delivering much-needed affordable housing, however the council estimated 23.5 per cent of affordable housing units would have been lost.”

I wonder how that compares to the amount of affordable housing "lost" due to claims by developers of viability issues? Not to mention the time & cost involved in assessing those viability claims, which I believe are (at the moment) usually with-held from public scrutiny because of commercial confidence.

Since when have WBC put value for rate payers above what the staff and members of "the club" want?

[user23]

I doesn't come often from me, I know, but well done to our councils for not caving in to the government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...g-10439044.html

You might have missed this in the NWN on the topic.

[motormad]

Well here goes...

"Affordable housing" is a pointless humiliating funny-money scheme that distorts the market and does nothing to make housing more affordable, it just creates busy-work for our Big State functionaries. Better still to drop the whole nonsense, let the market set the price, and save ourselves the administration.

Housing is made affordable by:

1. Paying people enough, and
2. Building enough houses.

Key workers can't afford to live in the area they work? Fine, then let them move away, because if they really are so very "key" their employers will just need to pay them adequately.

It's not quite as simple as that.

I have been earning at least £40k for the last few years (my base salary isn't that high but that's with overtime/bonuses etc) and that's still not enough for me to rent my own small-ish house/decent flat in Thatcham or Newbury, let alone by one - instead I have to pay £400-£500 a month to rent a room in a house.

Too many houses mean over population, I don't think "build more" is the answer. We only need to look at the traffic chaos that descends upon Newbury every 5pm, imagine that with another 500 houses, assuming on average 2 cars per household, that's another 1000 cars trying to get home from work.

And again in reality company will not pay "more" than they need to. And I don't think it's the responsibility of a company to pay extra just so people can afford to pay over-the-odds for a house.

On my salary, which is very good TBF, I can't afford to buy a house, this is not my companies fault, and so they shouldn't need to pay me additional money. The houses should be cheaper and more affordable. The maximum mortgage I can get if I clear my credit card is £125k with a 10k deposit. That won't get a house in our area, certainly not of a good enough quality to want to be paying that amount for it..

I'm sorry but the issue, again, is people who buy multiple houses, or buy-to-let, or private rent out whole properties, this is what drives up the prices. If you ask a man to choose between morals and money, it's not a particularly hard choice. People are inherently greedy. Their £5m retirement fund obviously isn't enough.