It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Housing for non home owners

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 04:31 PM
Should housing for those that cannot afford their own be spread amongst the whole community or in it's own quadrant. I'm British and know very little about HPs, but in any American's opinion, if they were spread out, would this feed the problem or social mobility?

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 05:06 PM

I don't "own" my own home.

Nor do I care to. Instead I rent an apartment for much much cheaper, and call the landlord if my boiler breaks.

Maybe I'm just being bitchy but your post seems to say non owners = losers.

Just because you don't "own" a house ( aka - the bank owns it, you owe the bank) doesn't mean you are homeless.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 05:18 PM
Nah, I rent as well.

No, this is long term housing, in the past referred to as council houses.

I'm quite glad my post assumed poor = loser, as that often is the perception, which is what I am getting at.

Is it better for 'poor' people to be pushed together, or mixing these items of social ('council') housing with other housing, will lead to better social integration

I'm becoming more aware that this is suicide......

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 05:25 PM
Yeah im not sure where or why people get the impression that renters are losers etc. I am a landlord, and we rent out a house in nice area. The family that rents our home makes more a year than I do. They simply choose not to own.

As noted above, anything breaks then I have to go fix it etc. Some people do not want to be tied down etc.

As far as keeping a economic stratification, I think its inevitable. People with more money can and do chose to live in communities with lower crime, better schools, better infrastructure etc. So you have this migration back and forth between areas. People with money can afford to live elsewhere, those that don't either stay put or move into less affluent areas etc.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 05:31 PM
Although I do personally believe a place to live is a basic human right and every human should have shelter, it is not realistic in a capitalist society.
In a perfect society everyone would have a home free of mortgages and rents, perhaps a special 'home tax' could be paid instead of a rent or mortgage would insure everyone has a place to call their own.
But, of course, that would be communism.
If you fancy a fancier place, well you could dig into your own pocket and pay the difference.

I believe poor people should live in mixed income areas, when poor people are all shoved together it only breeds crime ridden neighborhoods.
At least there would be a better chance for opportunities in a mixed neighborhood, like better TV's and stereo's to steal
, but seriously, people shouldn't be segregated, it creates societal classes.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 06:44 PM
With the risk of sounding mentally out of order, I will now leave my senses.....

The left wing argument is a social interaction argument, you want people of all wealth levels interacting. The right wing argument is more intersting. At a plain level it indicates that 'you' don't want 'them' in your way. However, on closer inspection, you do not want 'them' concentrated, 'you' need to divide and conquer 'them.'

What I wonder is how the social housing should be distributed. I reckon random, some little clusters and so hubs and others swamped by what society calls success and therefore is so......

...... I have now re entered my senses and apologise for all of this verbantim.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:12 PM
The reason renters are typically considered to be a loser exists for a couple reasons. The first is that it is assumed your credit is not good enough to attain the loan to purchase the home. The second is that renting a home is seen as "throwing money away," where as owning allows you to pay toward the principle and eventually generate equity in the home and retain the wealth.

As far as social diversification in a given area, people will always choose to live in areas with people that they more readily identify with. This only makes sense, as an elderly individual would you want to live adjacent to college party teens?

While it may be a nice idea from a socialist perspective to force individuals to experience all that mankind has to offer in their neighborhood, most people have enough wisdom to seek like minded people. If nothing else this reduces social conflict.

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by Aquin

I hope you never live in a University town........

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 08:03 PM
As someone who has owned his own home at one point then privately rented for about 15 years, I moved around a lot for work, I have just today moved into a council owned house.

from a financial perspective it's the best move i ever made, I only earn about £250 per week and have been paying a private landlord £155 for rent (the going rate where i live), I will now be paying £40 a week, and I,m in the centre of a nice little town.

my friends who are home owners are constantly stressing about the banking crisis and tax increases/decreases, the boiler breaking, bad weather damaging the roof.

I am so glad I'm out of it, there have been so many council houses bought by the tennants over the years that there is quite a diverse group in most areas, except the places that are used as dumping grounds to put people who have been evicted from council houses or drug addicts, alcoholics etc.

new topics

top topics


log in