Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
Affordable homes not financially viable |
|
|
|
Dec 2 2016, 03:33 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2016, 05:49 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2016, 07:50 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2016, 01:42 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2016, 06:50 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2016, 09:23 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2016, 12:39 PM
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2016, 05:23 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2016, 06:04 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2016, 06:07 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|