Social housing, are you for or against it?

Staring this as I was starting to send another members thread off topic.

I am in favour of social housing in principal but the more I think I am not to sure.

I currently live in social housing but in the past I have owed(mortgaged) my own properties and also privatley rented.

Here is the thing, my current house is owned by a housing association but was origonally owned by the local council. the rent is a little under a third of the cost of a private rental in the same area. Another member stated that he is against social housing as it recieves government funding in the form of grants(I will retract or adjust this if I have misunderstood them and misrepresented there opinion,)

To me I am in favour of properly maintained social housing but suspect that like most things it is being abused both by the people running them in the form of huge saleries and poor managment, and by a percentage of those currently benefitting them.

So what is your opinion and bare in mind that ATS is a global site and social housing and the way it is managed and utilised will differ depending on your location, I am in the UK so can only comment on our own system and history.

No thanks . No longer get combat pay and no interest in living in a ghetto .

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
No thanks . No longer get combat pay and no interest in living in a ghetto .

So I guess your in the US and are you saying that all social housing is in rough areas over there?

Here in the UK a lot of it is in rough areas but a lot out in the country as well.

The house I am in now for example is in a tinly little village and is one of ten, I think they built where there was plenty of space.

Seen what passes for social housing in u.s , uk and ireland . Will stay far away from it all .

Now have nice house built on plot of land that I bought near beach in malaysia . And I dont have to deal with the riff-raff .

Ahh so from a personal point of view it something that you have no need or desire to return to.

Worked my ass off to make something of my life without relying on hand outs from anyone .
No interest in going back nor in supporting a bunch of deadbeats that do nothing other than leech off others and whine that the world owes them .

And no government should not bail their useless asses out . Nor should it support them .

Got raised in one, gave my a mom chance to get back on her feet, gave me and my bro a roof and a warm place to live.


I am happy that part of my taxes help others that are going through hard times.

a reply to: nonspecific

I don't know if you'd want an American's point of view but, I'll give mine as on the fence as I am.

If by social housing it can be related to Housing Authority projects and Section 8 (subsidised rent where the government pays a portion, sometimes most, of one's rent) here in the US then I am 'for' it in most cases. I'm 'for' it in cases of folks falling on hard times and needing a hand up. I do understand how one could become dependent on that type of benefit. It's the same with children, I think. One must come to pay their own way at some point, shouldn't they?

For example, I spoke of my mother earlier in a thread and mentioned that after my father had died, there would have been no way, IMO, that she could have lived (quality of life here) a decent life on her $1200/month social security income and afford rent, utilities, food, clothing, 20% medical bills (medicare pays %80) along with medicine, etc. That's why she lived with me, so I could help her out financially and physically.

I think for the elderly and handicapped etc. it is a good program.

I think it can be good for folks who just can't seem to 'get it together' but, I'm not sure that independence shouldn't be a goal at some point. I'm trying to be honest here.

I have seen these types of housing (in the US) benefits be abused and one very close to me that I will give as an example.

There is a row of apartments that were built specifically for children aging out of foster care. The requirement is they must work and or go to school, have a child and be in the process of becoming a responsible adult.

This particular situation is being abused as the 'kids' party all day, night and rarely leave the property (except to the store and back, it appears) so I can't see that they are working. There is no respect shown for the community around them as they allow their garbage to pile up (there are city provided trash bins-free of charge-in front of everyone's home who live in the city), music and 'gunning' their engines into the night, fighting in the 'parking area'...it's just awful really how it's gone downhill since it opened.

I wonder if they were responsible for their own rent/upkeep of the apartment, maintenance etc if they would be so flippant?

I'll be moving soon so, it won't be an irritant for me much longer.

You are lucky to get social housing now as many foreign people can jump the lists due to having more children and private rent is so expensive for a single guy but it does not need the wait of years and years .

I was shocked at how little your rent is where you are now Nonspecific a council property where i am of that size is way more expensive to rent , i was looking at Gainsburough in lincoinshire and was shocked at how cheap it was on zoopla compared to where i live in the sticks of Scotland almost 40% less for a private rent .

Way to many properties were sold of and no new ones built to replace them and if you are a single person try a 10 plus year wait for one .

Yes i am in favour but just for locals

Social housing in the UK was originally intended for those who had lost their homes during the bombings in World War II. To qualify for social housing, you had to be "respectable", have a steady job and a family. It wasn't intended for druggies, alcoholics, neighbors from hell or single parent teenagers.

Some housing was really good quality - actually better than the new homes being built now. Those build in the 1950's/1960's had large backyards, a driveway and planning permission to build an "extension". Although they didn't have double glazing, central heating, insulation or double brick layer walls at the time, those could be retrofitted. Eventually they got sold off as part of the "right-to-buy" scheme and are now worth £200K upwards.

But now ... priority is given to those who engineer their situation to be the worst possible due to means testing - unemployed, no skills, large family, no savings. It just makes a joke of the whole concept of paying council tax and national insurance when you won't get anything back in return.

Well, over here there are these social housing units that have subsidized rent. The people living there do get cheap rent but what these places get for their combined rent is way higher than what a person renting an apartment out gets. At minimum they are twenty five percent more expensive and on top of that, they get to deduct their income tax and property taxes.

I think the private sector would do better. Another thing is that people know that the rents in these units is high and this makes the local landlords feel they should get more. It drives up rent to everyone and spoils the low income people who rent. I remember when I had my first apartments, they were plain jane places, old appliances and there were only a few cabinets in the kitchen. I was happy with that little dump, I kept it clean and rent including heat, lights, water, sewer, garbage,and even a washer and dryer down the hall was ninety bucks a month for the one bedroom apartment. Better than renting a room for fifty bucks. Now, I know, that was a weeks worth of wages back then but the apartments usually included everything. That left three weeks income to do whatever you wanted with. No paperwork to fill out either, a fifty buck deposit was all that was needed back then. People respected people's property back then, sure there were a few bad renters but not like today, there are lots of people who don't pay their rent and trash their places now.

I used to own an apartment building, I doubt if I would want to have one anymore.

I have no problem chipping in to try to keep the world from looking like this again:




But with the rate at how much wages are deviating from cost of living, I'd say we're pretty much heading back in that direction anyways. Social safety nets or not.

Goodbye middle class, hello feudalism.

... again.

a reply to: nonspecific

It's a tricky question, I can't speak for other countries but in the UK the whole thing is a mess. How many single parents live in privately rented accommodation which is in part, if not entirely paid through gov benefits to private landlords?
Even if people are working full time they often can't afford to pay the rents in some areas of the country and rely on housing benefit, or Universal credit whatever it's called now. On top of that you'd think 2008 never happened with buy to let mortgages still popular. How can a landlord go wrong when they know even if someone can't afford the rent they charge they will still paid because the government in most cases will cover the costs?

What I'm getting at is that if governments are to rightly provide housing assistance to those in need, they shouldn't do so by lining the pockets of private landlords.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: nonspecific

It's a tricky question, I can't speak for other countries but in the UK the whole thing is a mess. How many single parents live in privately rented accommodation which is in part, if not entirely paid through gov benefits to private landlords?
Even if people are working full time they often can't afford to pay the rents in some areas of the country and rely on housing benefit, or Universal credit whatever it's called now. On top of that you'd think 2008 never happened with buy to let mortgages still popular. How can a landlord go wrong when they know even if someone can't afford the rent they charge they will still paid because the government in most cases will cover the costs?

What I'm getting at is that if governments are to rightly provide housing assistance to those in need, they shouldn't do so by lining the pockets of private landlords.

I said another thing in another thread, its a big scam and its a good one, how many politicans have rental properties and lots of them? most of them do, as you say they are simply getting the tapayer to pay the mortgage with housing benefit and tax credits knowing that they end up with a bunch of houses without paying anything other than the initial deposit.

a reply to: nonspecific

simply getting the tapayer to pay the mortgage with housing benefit and tax credits knowing that they end up with a bunch of houses without paying anything other than the initial deposit

Agreed, and in my opinion it played a huge part in the last financial crash/housing bubble. On top of that anyone with any spare cash is still looking to invest it in property in some form or other, pushing prices up further. It seems like the greater part of economy is dependent on it, I wonder who will have to cough up the bill the next time it all goes tits up?

I am all for Social Housing, particularly since the Tory Government lifted the Fair Rents legislation when they came into power in 2010. Previously the rents were set by local authorities and ensured that private landlords didn't receive too much money through Housing Benefit and that the standard of the living accommodation was to an accepted standard.

Of course Thatcher allowed people to start buying their council houses in the early 1980's whilst ensuring councils could not build any further social housing and they were not permitted to spend any of the money they made from the sale of the housing stock. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed over the last 30 years are those that had bought their council house, passing away and the family selling it on to a private landlord.

Housing Associations were still permitted to build social housing, hence the rise in the number of Housing Associations over the past 30 years.

Affordable rents should be legislated, but of course, private landlords are historically Tory voters, so a Tory Government will do all it can to reduce social housing and force people to be at the mercy of a private landlord, which if you are very lucky, will not rinse you for as much as they can and will keep the property to a liveable standard. Unfortunately, there are too many that won't on either account.

a reply to: nonspecific

In theory, I'm for it.

In practice, it gets abused so much that the benefits are always overshadowed by those who abuse the system. So it gets a bad rap.

As long as it ain't a trap house.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nonspecific

In theory, I'm for it.

In practice, it gets abused so much that the benefits are always overshadowed by those who abuse the system. So it gets a bad rap.

How does it work over there, Here it is owned by either the local council or housing associations which are not for profit and that is how the rent is kept at a reasonable ratte but I cannot imagine that happening in the US?

a reply to: nonspecific

I really don't know.

What I do know is that you have to qualify based on your situation. It's through some sort of government department.

But, like any government (be it in the US, UK or elsewhere) it is rife with corruption.