Social housing, are you for or against it?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: nonspecific

I'm a big supporter of social housing.

Many of the UK's problems can be traced back to Thatcher and her policy of selling off council housing whilst banning the building of any more new council housing.

It certainly fuelled spiralling house prices, something we are still paying the price for.
It led to a rapid increase in private renting costs and in my personal opinion contributed to the breakdown in the 'sense of community' that prevailed in many council estates but is now virtually non-existent.

Yeah, I've paid high rents over the years when I was working but once i became ill, I couldn't keep the rent, even with help from benefits so i moved myself into a Council property (One bed Maisionette) and it's fine by me. A lot cheaper too... if I was in of these to begin with, I would have saved many more thousands of pounds!

Have you seen the Blocks now? They are decked out well nice but I didn't want to be living in one of those blocks which resemble a prison of some sorts... and you are basically trapped inside until you get out of the outer doors to the building.

a reply to: nonspecific

People should not be allowed to own more than their family can, themselves, use and maintain. (There should be no hoarding and/or slave-mongering.)

Otherwise, and as a right of life, social housing, paid for by the wealthy, should be obligatory. (And it kind of is, through taxation, in some countries.) + a chameleon for all those commas.

It was a basic tory policy of selling property off as once you brought it (even for a cheap price) you had an interest in it and thus the price you could possibly sell it for.

The problem I have with it in America: it aggregates poor people into isolated ghetto's, eliminating their social mobility through geographic isolation and the resulting loss of networking and opportunity.

Making matters worse: the folks who tend to live in these areas are single moms, felons, and sex offenders (i.e., people who have trouble finding adequate work for their situation, and people who can't pass credit checks or otherwise wouldn't be rented a home in a neighborhood).

So the result is, the children of the poor end up sucked up in felonious gang activity, or worse, and feed the cycle of inner city poverty and violence.

My main concern is the effect it has on social and economic mobility for the poor.

a reply to: nonspecific
Considering my present circumstances, I'm for any kind of housing.

I'm all for them, but think the rules need to be stricter. More like TANF, you only get it for so long, then no more. I also think they need to be staffed with financial counselors, to help people learn to understand & manage their money better. And meeting with them should be mandatory -- if you don't do it, you move out. This is just common sense for the long term.

I think the only groups that should be granted great leniency in public/social housing are the severely disabled and the elderly. It is not wise to s# on them, they're the most vulnerable of society.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
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 .

Without reading further into the thread, I take this to mean you're an expat.

A large portion of the hard right on this site would say you're a pansy, claim you abandoned the US, and ran off to live in another country instead of staying and helping make their precious MAGA line work.

I'm not one of them. Live where you want, so long as you love it enough. I just hope that expats of any flavor are able to get assistance in their countries of residence if the need arises. The universe has this uncanny ability to crap on even the most fortunate, the ability to be taken care of like a local in need if it ever comes to it is really my only concern with expat life.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: nonspecific

People should not be allowed to own more than their family can, themselves, use and maintain. (There should be no hoarding and/or slave-mongering.)

Otherwise, and as a right of life, social housing, paid for by the wealthy, should be obligatory. (And it kind of is, through taxation, in some countries.) + a chameleon for all those commas.

That is an interesting point, I know somone who lives in social housing yet their parents own around a dozen private rental properties just down the road.

To me this is wrong but that's business for you.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm all for them, but think the rules need to be stricter. More like TANF, you only get it for so long, then no more. I also think they need to be staffed with financial counselors, to help people learn to understand & manage their money better. And meeting with them should be mandatory -- if you don't do it, you move out. This is just common sense for the long term.

This I also find interresting, here in the UK as I said earlier soclial housing is owned either by local councils of not for profit trusts and the rent is set at an affordable rate.

Given that in order for the economy to "work" some people need to be at the very bottom of the payscale then surely reasonably priced housing should be something that these hard working people can have access to.

A private landlord can buy a house on a mortgage, pay a company to manage the lease and still make a profit so is social housing too cheap or is private rental to epensive?

As I said earlier a private rental in this part of the UK would amount to around 70% of someones minimum wage and that cannot be right can it?

originally posted by: nonspecific
Social housing, are you for or against it?

The option is a rise in homeless families?

Who said that a society is known by how it treats those in prison, and the poor?
What a disgrace to force/allow our people to live in the streets!

a reply to: Nyiah

What do you mean by this?

"to help people learn to understand & manage their money better."??

Ridiculous... absolutely ridiculous.

a reply to: nonspecificYou must realize that housing associations ARE private landlords and their low rent agenda is not regulated by government but by self regulation. So at any time they can throw that out of the window and charge what they want.
The thing is with HA is that the vast majority of their properties are fairly new, wait for 10 to 15 years when their properties will start to need heavy maintenance. With a local authority property they had a dedicated workforce for this but HA rely on private contractor, that alone WILL drive up their rents.
At the moment we are in an artificial housing bubble created by this government. Around here there are about 4 thousand houses being built in about a 10 mile square area. Supposed to be affordable!!! Average price £250,000. Oh, you can get government help to buy one, IF you've got 10% deposit.
Now how many houses are being built in your area? Everywhere I've asked it's the same, big developments. It makes great for the government to brag about our economy "oh look how many houses we are building". Yet just who is going to buy all these properties? Now you know the answer to that question and it's certainly not the ordinary man in the street.
The problem with living in rented housing is that it's very, very hard to get out of as your wages get used up on just living and you have no extra income to put up for a deposit for a mortgage. Your in between a rock and a hard place.
THAT'S why there HAS to be social housing owned and controlled by the local authority.

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: Nyiah

What do you mean by this?

"to help people learn to understand & manage their money better."??

Ridiculous... absolutely ridiculous.

Explain why financial literacy is ridiculous? I started out in adult life without much knowledge and pissed away a lot of money not knowing there were other ways to handle it other than spend, spend, spend. I had no idea how to be a competent young adult with money, I learned very poor money management from my mother, who still pisses away money to this day. I'm making an effort to learn how to better manage my money now, without the benefit of a financial counselor. I'm learning it basically DIY-style, but there are more than enough poor who'd benefit from a comprehensive approach with qualified teachers. It's not as simple as "just don't spend it", a lot of people have no idea how to pick a freaking checking account that is the best fit for them, too many people don't understand compounding fees and interest rates, etc.

Again, explain how this knowledge is ridiculous.

a reply to: crayzeed

Extremely well put, if and when do you see the bubble bursting? For me something has to give sooner or later, or maybe it's all part of the plan?

a reply to: nonspecific

No, I don't mean it should only be a short-term option, I mean it shouldn't be life-long. I should have explained better.
Cheap housing for the most needy should always be an option while they're in school, working up job ladders, securing & maintaining transportation access, etc. I don't disagree with you that rent shouldn't be the majority of, or their entire paycheck, that's asinine. Work to have a roof and nothing else ain't much of a life. But I do think these should be stepping stones in leaving abject poverty behind, not a crutch for continuing it. Once you've maxed the time allowed, be it cumulative over several shots at it, or all in one shot, it shouldn't be available. If you end up needing it again post-maxing, there's likely an underlying issue than needs looked at, such as mental health or addictions. Not everything presents in youth.

a reply to: nonspecific

Social housing is necessary to protect the most vulnerable in a caring society.
I support councils having the authority to build new homes and rent them out at sustainable rates which could be plowed back to fund further developments.

My priorities would be elderly or disabled people and of course children.
There remains the problem of females having children for the sole purpose of getting a council home though.

When the housing stock is available then it will continue to be filled by single parents, many of which are not really single at all.

Disagree all you like but I was in that game professionally for a few years and I know plenty in my social life.
Cry "anecdotal" all you like but it is the big fat elephant in the room.

Back in the 90's single parents were required to start looking for work to continue receiving benefits when their youngest child turned 16.
The government saw a problem that many women just popped another child out.
The age limit was lowered to school age for the youngest child, and guess what, lots of unemployment single parent women pop another one out now their youngest turns 5.

Nope, unless the housing stock is massively increased and a solution is found for women who treat children as an income/housing tool then I don't ever see it fixed.

I support social housing but I don't support the current shambles in the UK which is abused badly and negotiated as a game by many folk who will never pay into the system.