IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Affordable homes not financially viable
Andy Capp
post Dec 2 2016, 09:10 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



"The four most powerful companies – Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Berkeley Group – are making so much money they are planning to give £6.6bn extra in dividends to shareholders by 2021..."

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/...s-house-prices/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gel
post Dec 2 2016, 10:48 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 948
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



Only socialist dogma requires a commercial venture to subsidise public housing.

People who strive to improve themselves normally aspire to own their own home;
if previously in public/ social housing I'm sure they don't want a new development peppered with
lower cost social housing.
There can also be frictions shall we say, between those who care for their dwellings and
those who don't.
(You can guess which category are in the latter, not all by any means).
And why Sovereign Hsg ***'s has an Anti Social behaviour Dept.

Social housing near us ( which tenants are not allowed to purchase under Right To Buy, under original
planning permission) has one house with a 911 & top of range Volvo Estate parked outside;
if they can afford that, why do they qualify for Social Housing which is subsidised out of pubic purse?

Why should the taxpayer be subsidising their rent so they can afford luxuries many others can't?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Dec 2 2016, 12:27 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



Companies don't exist to build homes, cars, etc; they exist to make money.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Dec 2 2016, 12:27 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,597
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



And should politicians interfere with a free market?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 2 2016, 12:32 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 2 2016, 09:10 AM) *
"The four most powerful companies – Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Berkeley Group – are making so much money they are planning to give £6.6bn extra in dividends to shareholders by 2021..."

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/...s-house-prices/


Surely that information must be wrong? rolleyes.gif Developers are struggling to make ends meet and have been for years. This is why our beloved West Berks Council has been giving away very valuable land or negotiating a massive £1 selling price for half of Newbury and dropping any affordable homes requirements to aid the poor developers as they struggle to survive! rolleyes.gif
Or is it the case that the brown paper bags donated to certain people, or the new digital equivalent, is still going strong? cool.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Dec 2 2016, 12:44 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



Yes, but think of the shareholders point of view. Tis the time of year to say, bah! Humbug! Even Tiny Tim now has shares in Barrett's.


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Dec 2 2016, 03:33 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (gel @ Dec 2 2016, 10:48 AM) *
Social housing near us ( which tenants are not allowed to purchase under Right To Buy, under original
planning permission) has one house with a 911 & top of range Volvo Estate parked outside;
if they can afford that, why do they qualify for Social Housing which is subsidised out of pubic purse?

Why should the taxpayer be subsidising their rent so they can afford luxuries many others can't?

I don't know where you live, but normally the affordable housing on new developments is normally pretty easily identified by the crappy cars parked outside. Just because you've seen one house with these cars (allegedly) it seems pretty stupid to be making such a generalisation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Dec 2 2016, 05:49 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



QUOTE (newres @ Dec 2 2016, 04:33 PM) *
I don't know where you live, but normally the affordable housing on new developments is normally pretty easily identified by the crappy cars parked outside. Just because you've seen one house with these cars (allegedly) it seems pretty stupid to be making such a generalisation.

Cortinas on piles of bricks, fridges in front garden, pit bulls on chains, luvly jubbly!


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Dec 3 2016, 01:08 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,597
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



And if they complain? "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Dec 3 2016, 07:50 AM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (gel @ Dec 2 2016, 10:48 AM) *
Only socialist dogma requires a commercial venture to subsidise public housing.

Which is only right when it is public equity which subsidies commercial ventures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HJD
post Dec 3 2016, 09:26 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 5-September 09
Member No.: 322



QUOTE (gel @ Dec 2 2016, 10:48 AM) *
Only socialist dogma requires a commercial venture to subsidise public housing.

People who strive to improve themselves normally aspire to own their own home;
if previously in public/ social housing I'm sure they don't want a new development peppered with
lower cost social housing.
There can also be frictions shall we say, between those who care for their dwellings and
those who don't.
(You can guess which category are in the latter, not all by any means).
And why Sovereign Hsg ***'s has an Anti Social behaviour Dept


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VxkltwS9g0 wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Dec 3 2016, 01:42 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (gel @ Dec 2 2016, 10:48 AM) *
Only socialist dogma requires a commercial venture to subsidise public housing.

People who strive to improve themselves normally aspire to own their own home;
if previously in public/ social housing I'm sure they don't want a new development peppered with
lower cost social housing.
There can also be frictions shall we say, between those who care for their dwellings and
those who don't.
(You can guess which category are in the latter, not all by any means).
And why Sovereign Hsg ***'s has an Anti Social behaviour Dept.

Social housing near us ( which tenants are not allowed to purchase under Right To Buy, under original
planning permission) has one house with a 911 & top of range Volvo Estate parked outside;
if they can afford that, why do they qualify for Social Housing which is subsidised out of pubic purse?

Why should the taxpayer be subsidising their rent so they can afford luxuries many others can't?


Socialist dogma is far more likely to simply suggest that it is the state's duty to provide housing for the poor - it was Thatcherite policy to privatise the provision of subsidised housing. Many socialists would prefer to return to local authority building programmes - simply because they were far more effective at providing the number of homes that were needed (we build far fewer affordable homes today than at any time in the last 70 years).

It was also Thatcherite policy to integrate subsidised housing into private developments - with the aim of avoiding the old sink estates created by concentrating housing for poor people into ghetto estates.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 3 2016, 06:50 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 3 2016, 01:42 PM) *
Socialist dogma is far more likely to simply suggest that it is the state's duty to provide housing for the poor

Socialist dogma has the lowest paid earning a living wage sufficient to afford a home and other of life's essentials without the indignity of subsidies.

"Affordable homes" is neo-liberal dogma, allowing industry to pay its workers impossibly poor wages and thus creating a state bureaucracy to both humiliate those paupers with the indignity of welfare support, and administer funny-money housing schemes so that they can still live within commuting distance on the impossibly-poor wages paid by industry.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Dec 3 2016, 08:31 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,597
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



Yeah bruvver! Bring the means of production into the hands of the proletariats. Oh, tried that before, didn't work out so well though, did it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Dec 3 2016, 09:23 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Dec 3 2016, 08:31 PM) *
Yeah bruvver! Bring the means of production into the hands of the proletariats. Oh, tried that before, didn't work out so well though, did it?

Neither did right wing nationalism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Dec 4 2016, 09:25 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



The point is public land is given away to private companies who claim poverty. The council is a discrace. If developers won't build then give the land to HAs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Dec 4 2016, 12:39 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 4 2016, 09:25 AM) *
The point is public land is given away to private companies who claim poverty. The council is a discrace. If developers won't build then give the land to HAs.
Has it been given away or long term leased?

Do you think our local Housing Association has the tens of millions needed to build on the land?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Dec 4 2016, 05:23 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 4 2016, 12:39 PM) *
Has it been given away or long term leased?

Do you think our local Housing Association has the tens of millions needed to build on the land?


Interesting point. If the development is truly a partnership, then leasing or perhaps even selling the land for a very low sum is a reasonable way for the Council to inject its equity into the arrangement. However, we'd need to see the full terms of the arrangement, which as it involves public assets couldn't really be regarded as commercially sensitive.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Dec 4 2016, 06:04 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Dec 3 2016, 08:31 PM) *
Yeah bruvver! Bring the means of production into the hands of the proletariats. Oh, tried that before, didn't work out so well though, did it?

Wasn't perfect but it worked a lot better than the current system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Dec 4 2016, 06:07 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 4 2016, 12:39 PM) *
Has it been given away or long term leased?

Do you think our local Housing Association has the tens of millions needed to build on the land?


No, but yes. Look at the Sovereign development at Speen - pay for the build by selling enough to cover costs, keep the rest for social renting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:07 PM