On 14 Apr 2015 at 8:10am Fairmeadow wrote:
Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy of the 1980s is the major cause of today's affordable housing crisis in and around Lewes. Great idea to repeat it today. Not!
What are the chances of replacing the houses sold with new ones? Zero. Where would one put the new houses in Lewes for example? Up on the Downs?
However, back in the 1980s bribing people with their own money did prove popular with the voters. Are we still so dim today?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 9:41am Spawn of Thatcher wrote:
How very dare you - I own my ex council house in a Sussex village thanks to Maggie - worth near half a million£ LOL
On 14 Apr 2015 at 10:57am Paul Newman wrote:
We need more housing, (or fewer immigrants) in the South East but I don`t understand why you think selling houses to people (cheaply) contributes to a housing shortage?
Everyone who buys a house in Lewes pays for it and if you hold housing off the market then everyone else has to pay more ( simple supply and demand )-
Why do you feel that house buyers who struggle and over-borrow should be put under more pressure than they are already.For first time buyers and young people its especially difficult and more stock to buy would be a help
I have my own doubts about this Policy but I don`t follow yours and whose money is this, you think is being given away anyway ?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 12:20pm Localbod wrote:
If I had made, and encouraged derogatory misogynistic posts on a blog, without apology, I wouldn't be making comments on threads titled 'learning from my mistakes'.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 12:46pm Paul Newman wrote:
Translation - "I have nothing to say I don`t understand but oooooo I just really really really don`t like you at all ..."
I`m mortified ( and yet bored )
On 14 Apr 2015 at 1:03pm Mark wrote:
Err.. "simple supply and demand"? Demand would drop just as much as supply would. A minor point of course but I enjoy it when you make mistakes.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 1:27pm Localbod wrote:
Ultimately PN no one cares what either of us write on here, although personal attacks on women are removed.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 1:34pm Fairmeadow wrote:
It is Housing Associations' money that will be being given away, should the Tories get in, but they will be recompensed from public funds. So Paul, it is your and my money that is being given away.
Councils are to be compelled to transfer any of their 33% most expensive properties into the private sector as they become vacant. That will include virtually every Lewes (or Newick or Wivelsfield or Ditchling) council house that becomes vacant. They are to be replaced by using the proceeds to build new houses on "vacant council-owned brownfield sites". Exactly where in Lewes are those sites? Oh, there aren't any. So there won't be any new houses.
Great news for DFLs - more Lewes houses coming on the market, but not such good news for existing commuters, as there won't be any new trains. A disaster for Lewes's own young people, whose chance of affordable housing will drop from very low to zero. I'm sure Ms Caulfield will be able to explain to us what a great idea this is at the next hustings (if she ever comes to Lewes).
Note also that no section 106 or CIL money will come with any of these new houses, so bad news too for anyone needing GP hospital attention, wanting a place in a local school or trying to use the local roads.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 2:32pm Paul Newman wrote:
The Housing Association is a Quango for running Council Houses so that’s public money and the replacement houses will be paid for by sales of expensive sites, which is also public money ( Value created might I point out only by “DFLs and the like “ paying more than they market would have set for their mortgage, the bricks are worth nothing ) . None of it ever did anyone any good except those in council housing so its not really ‘public’ and the value was created by private buyers.
Looking into it the figures are these
2.5 million housing association homes,
1.3 million have tenants qualifying for right-to-buy
Council sales - 15,000 of their priciest sites each year
£4.5bn a year revenue
Number of houses constant
Surely the greater the supply the more chance Lewes people have of buying ?
Gainers – House Buyers
Existing Tenants obviously
Gainers – All needing housing as the total housing increases
Losers –People in the future wanting discounted houses but only in the place they were born (possibly ?)....
Do you think there will be an enormous amount of sympathy for their plight .I don`t know its not something I ever expected ( and certainly didn`t get ). Might this not be addressed anyway ?
Not perfect maybe but there are some good things about it aren`t there ?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 3:04pm Local wrote:
and that is of course why Lewes does not now have any problems whatsoever with affordable homes for essential workers, even though private homes (including ex Council stock, which would have been ideal) escalate beyond the range of anyone on a reasonable, or even good wage.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 3:07pm Paul Newman wrote:
..and who do you think is inessential then ?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 3:17pm Brady wrote:
Totally agree fairmeadow. I can see the gentrification of the Ousedale estate next! They will build a housing estate in Peacehaven and ship them all off there so commuters can pay to live in what they will call 'Ousedale heights' and be able to walk to the train station and the whole estate can be brought up by Chinese investors!
On 14 Apr 2015 at 3:34pm Southover Queen wrote:
The Telegraph is appalled, which says something.
Why does subsidised housing exist at all? Is it because there will always be people in society who can't afford to pay the market rate for housing? Single parent families, or disabled people, for instance? What would a three bedroom house in Lewes cost, at the bottom end of the market? £300k? Will those people be able to raise a mortgage, even for a 70% discount? No, they won't.
It's a bribe, pure and simple. Laughable too, because it's so transparent.
Check it out here »
On 14 Apr 2015 at 4:22pm PN wrote:
SQ- The Telegraph is making the same complaint as the Speccie which is that it seems unfair that people who happen to rent in Council Property should be treated so generously.
The Telegraph has the same problem with all subsidized housing so its not exactly on your side.
I can see the need for cheap housing, but why does it have to be in the middle of expensive housing, surely that is a project that has an inbuilt contradiction anyway ?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 4:47pm Southover Queen wrote:
The reason that housing is unaffordable, and therefore has achieved mythic status in the minds of most Brits, is because there simply isn't enough of it. The property owners sit smugly in crazily expensive houses counting their money, but it's only accessible to them if they leave the country. On top of that, very little of the incredible capital value makes its way into the system, so we - as a nation - have much less to invest in businesses and industry as individuals. Just about everything we earn goes into paying for somewhere to live.
Communities need a mixture of folk to be successful, which is why the London housing market is such a problem: no "normal" person, with a "normal" job can afford to live there as it is already.
The country needs a coherent housing policy. This is not it: in fact, it makes the problem worse.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 5:11pm I despair wrote:
when I read posts like PN's I despair. I will tell you why we need a mixture of housing. I would like my family and friends to not only be able to live in a healthy and vibrant mixed environment with me , but also be able to get normal services from normal people (eg nurses, street cleaners, mechanics and shopworkers). The idea that we should have areas like Belgravia (100% wealthy ghost town soul-less areas, full of empty property owned by oversees investors) and then socially cleansed ghettos for different levels of affluence is as mad as it is contemptuous of other people. The ultimate version would be some kind of workhouse for the poor, so the rest of us aren't tainted and our lives ruined by their grubbiness.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 5:32pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Housing association chiefs have publicly stated that having to sell off stock at a discount and losing rental income could lead to them being unable to repay the money they borrowed to build them in the first place.
How can that be a good thing?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 6:46pm pn wrote:
I rather share your regret at the way social chromotography as operated segregate people although your wish to live in a "vibrant" community is ever so slightly twee. I very much doubt this wish is held very deeply or you would go and live in one .
In trendy vibrant Brighton when they actually tried to bus children around for a balanced school intake there was complete non cooperation and the policy failed . Tells you a lot about how deep the desire for a social mixture is.
Having said all that I can see the problem with housing . I just don`t see that there anything the government can usefully do about it . If some more people are housed and some more people have capital thats not a bad thing surely
On 14 Apr 2015 at 7:03pm Southover Queen wrote:
Paul, why is having capital which is of no practical use to you of any value? You're just buying into this idea that rising property values are a good thing. There is an added problem now, which is that no-one has any savings outside of what they have "invested" in their property, so any "correction" in the housing market could have really catastrophic repercussions for those in later life, who are relying on their property to fund retirement.
What the government can do about it is ensure that more housing is built, including housing which is affordable to those on "normal" incomes. The severe shortage is already causing real social problems in London, where the people who are NEEDED to keep society ticking over cannot afford to live any longer. That's police officers, teachers and hospital staff as well as builders and plumbers: that's why a society which has priced out everyone who actually does something useful is heading for failure. That's also likely to become the case here; it probably is already to some extent.
On 15 Apr 2015 at 6:47am Paul Newman wrote:
SQ- I lived in London for many years and teachers ( an extremely well rewarded section of society ) had no more trouble than anyone else affording to live .
There is a a vast amount of dirt cheap housing in London no more than 30 minutes form anywhere else
You want certain select groups ( by which of course you mean Public sector workers ) to be given houses ,as well as safe jobs , pensions and the rest of the perks and not juist houses , you want them to live in desirable areas othjer people cannot afford
This is a ridiculous idea it makes no sense and it is founded on nothing more than misguided snobbery.
On 15 Apr 2015 at 9:13am Southover Queen wrote:
Yes. In Islington, I know.
Do you know what a one bedroom flat costs even in the grottier parts of Islington now? You'll be lucky to get change from £450k. So frankly I think you're a bit out of date there. Prices have doubled in five years. (I've just had a look: there's a flat in a purpose built 60s block in Highbury priced at £440k touted as "perfect for a first time buyer")
The odd thing about your statement is that actually just about the only people who could buy their flat under RTB are people like teachers, because they have a steady job and guaranteed income. So since you clearly despise public service workers, I wonder why you're defending a policy which privileges them?
Where is this amazingly repository of "dirt cheap housing"? 30 minutes from anywhere??? Unless "anywhere" is Middlesborough, you're talking abject nonsense. I have a lot of freelancer friends who live in London; they can't afford to buy (and never will) and most of them move every six months as the rent goes up. Unless you're earning at least a five figure salary, London is virtually unaffordable. And the only people who are really benefiting from that are overseas investors; I'd suggest that is really not healthy.
On 15 Apr 2015 at 10:45am Paul Newman wrote:
Islington has the largest Council estate in Europe , and half of it is public housing of which 70% are on some sort of benefits . If you cross the Caledonian Road form Barnsbury where Emily Thornberry Blair et al live ) the value per square foot drops by a factor of about 5 .
So the truth s if you want to live next door to Annie Lennox you can`t afford it , if you want to live 400 yards away in the Cally estate anyone can afford it.
Lets say you work in Highgate where Ed Milibands kids go to school. You can get there in ten minutes form Hackney and it is not expensive to live there.
You don`t want cheap housing , you want expensive housing available to favoured groups cheaply .
I absolutely do not despise the public sector and I certainly don`t despise teachers , in fact I wonder how they put up with the conditions they have to work in sometimes
On 15 Apr 2015 at 10:45am Belladonna wrote:
Well said SQ.
Paul , take a look at the article in Private Eye about housing associations. The government cannot include them in right to buy because HA assets are private funds.
Maybe we should steal the assets of the banks and build houses with them....
On 15 Apr 2015 at 10:52am lewes resident wrote:
builders and plumbers not able to afford housing??? laughable
On 15 Apr 2015 at 11:15am Southover Queen wrote:
What a fine and informative contribution, lewes resident.
Paul, a grim flat in an ex-local authority block in Hackney (Bethnal Green) is £425k. Go on: nominate another area of "dirt cheap housing". Trendy Walthamstow? £425k. Shepherds Bush? £495k.
Dirt cheap. Yeah.
On 15 Apr 2015 at 12:13pm Paul Newman wrote:
ooo that took all of about 10 seconds .....
£120,000 Guide Price*
2 bedroom apartment for sale
Rivermead House, Homerton Road, Hackney, London, E9 5QT
Bella Donna - HAs are quangos whose only suppose is to serve the public they cannot refuse to comply with the instructions of the public's democratically elected representatives although it is no surprise at all that they will try
The Housing Empires of London and elsewhere are the home of hard left anti social trouble makers and they`ll do anything to stop people getting out of their clutches.
By the way if you are under the impression that making free and cheap housing available will reduce demand for it (ie reduce waiting lists ) think about it for one second and then congratulate yourself for working out why the waiting list never gets shorter - never has, never will .
I have heard an argument that having mortgages produces a supine working population - Those arguments are always made by home owners
I have heard that we ought to value engineers plumbers and technicians more - made by people whose children are Lawyers
I have heard that we ought to all send our children to the bog standard failing LA school and .AS WE ALL KNOW .... the people who make it send their kids to Public School (like Dianne Abbot MP for Hackney) or indeed Tristan Hunt who ahs said he would send his kids to St Posh if he needed to
People are wonderfully predictable aren`t they
On 15 Apr 2015 at 1:17pm Factchecker wrote:
Paul: I would hate to make you seem a bit silly, but you do realise that a guide price is not a sale price, don't you?
On 15 Apr 2015 at 1:26pm Southover Queen wrote:
Source: www.home.co.uk: average price for a one bedroom flat in London is over £500k. I don't care if you can find some slum for peanuts: what matters are the prices everyone is paying/asking.
The fact remains that living in London is largely unaffordable.
More interestingly, you haven't responded to my observation that the only people currently occupying subsidised housing who are able to buy under RTB would be your despised public service workers...
On 15 Apr 2015 at 1:40pm Factchecker wrote:
SQ: I agree. I also think that when making claims about cheap housing, one should understand the difference between finding something inaccurate on the Internet , and reality.
On 15 Apr 2015 at 1:47pm Paul Newman wrote:
SQ I just asked Right move for property under £150,000 and got a limitless supply and the average is hardly the point given that parts of London are on a global market
Heres one in Lewisham
£125,000 Guide Price*
1 bedroom flat for sale
Hither Green Lane, Hither Green, SE13
A Self-Contained First Floor One Bedroom Flat
Would you call Lewisham a slum ? I think thats a bit harsh lots and lots of people do live there even if you feel it would be beneath you, Mrs Newman lived there for a while .
I really don`t despise Public sector workers ( or anyone else ) SQ and to be honest I was not aware that working for the state was qualification for RTB - How so ?
I thought it was three years residence
On 15 Apr 2015 at 1:58pm Factchecker. wrote:
I'll try again. You do realise that a Guide Price is not the sale price, don't you?
On 15 Apr 2015 at 8:46pm Belladonna wrote:
To afford your one bed flat you would have to earning about 45 k a year. That's presuming you have had a secure income for 3 years and a small deposit and a mortgage lender happy to give you the money. There aren't many first time buyers in their 20s, or in the public sector who could manage that. I'm in my 50s and I don't earn close to that. A newly qualified teacher starts on 21k - how could they afford that ? Or are you imagining a one bed ex council flat is going to be bought by a family ?
On 15 Apr 2015 at 8:49pm Belladonna wrote:
" Housing Empires of London and elsewhere are the home of hard left anti social trouble makers and they`ll do anything to stop people getting out of their clutches."
What the f does this mean ?? Are you completely nuts ?
On 15 Apr 2015 at 9:49pm Factchecker wrote:
Well possibly, but whatever the explanation, on a thread called "learning From Your Mistakes" PN might like to learn from his mistaken haste in rushing to an internet site to prove a point. Writing "ooo that took all of about 10 seconds ..... " was possibly a little bit over-confident, given that the mistake was also repeated in the next post.
On 16 Apr 2015 at 6:51am Builders Unable wrote:
To afford own house ? I worked in the building game since 1970 . It's not the license to print money as people think . At the moment brickies on sites are earning less than they were 10 years ago . Plasterers have been virtually made redundant by semi skilled dry liners. Other than Gas Safe, plumbers are cut to the bone on prices. The only way we get an advantage is our own labour is free and other trades do mates rates, so we can do up our houses .
On 16 Apr 2015 at 8:41am lewes resident wrote:
so who is making all the money from building and plumbing work? to get any work done costs a fortune?