to think that just because I can't afford to live in the most expensive part of town....

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

... I have not been 'socially cleansed' and do not live in a ghetto? Proposal today to sell off expensive social housing and replace with a higher quantity of newly-built, cheaper social housing article here seems to make a lot of sense. Why the emotive language?

My worry is schooling for kids in those new social housing areas. There are some quite grand houses round here that they use for social housing. They will fetch a nice amount if sold off but there is nowhere to build new housing so the outstanding secondary school which only be for those with the money to afford the nice houses and the kids in the new areas will have to make do with the worse schools.

I think some people on the thread are trying to have it both ways. They are outraged (rightly) at the idea that social housing tenants are all unemployed layabouts with huge social problems and indignantly point out (rightly) that social housing tenants could be teachers, nurses, retired, young families etc etc

But suddenly, when it's suggested that they might not necessarily be able to live in the most expensive area of town, there's talk of dodgy ghettos full of undesirables!

Make your mind up.

Erm, I'm still a bit confused limited, but I'm very pleased that your circumstances are such that you don't have to make that choice. Unfortunately, some people do, private renters, social renters and owners.

There arent enough areas like the one you live in, bit you can't expect that we are just going to throw some up by the end of the year so that everyone can have what you have. It's just not going to happen.

I think it does make sense, EXCEPT in those areas (eg London) where it is essential for there to be social housing in expensive areas - because there are people working in minimum wage jobs living in those areas, and they need to be supported to do so - moving them out will mean that travelling in to work is not economically viable, and there may not be jobs available wherever they're moved out to.

But as I understand the policy, it's a case of selling the housing stock as it becomes available, not moving people out?

LilyBolero
But as I understand the policy, it's a case of selling the housing stock as it becomes available, not moving people out?

yes - which would be a gradual change to where people needing social housing would be located.

TBH it would be similar policy to what buyers have been facing in last few years - having to choice less desirable locations. However these people in social housing would presumably be more vulnerable.

See, I want to be leftwing but some of the emotive arguments on here just don't help me. I just cannot feel sorry for the MNer who reckons she is entitled to a bigger house without paying for it! The whole 'social housing tenants are just like you and I, working and paying tax etc' seems to miss the crucial point that owners pay through the nose whatever they can afford to buy a home, whereas council tenants do not. It seems as though council tenants expect considerably more security and rights than people who pay for their homes have, and I struggle to understand or sympathise. I have no prejudice but I also cannot see why people have such a sense of entitlement when it comes to housing.

I guess I agree with the principle that each postcode or whatever should havesocial housing, but that it should be of a lesser quality than housing which people have to pay for. It just seems to fit best with UK society and values best IMO. We live in a capitalist society where people who earn more have a higher standard of living but everyone isgenerally ok, and there is aspiration and social mobility. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that.

I agree with that Lily, and not only is it just a case of the stock being sold off when it becomes naturally available, but they are only going to sell off the stock that is more expensive than average. So there will be average and smaller than average priced properties left, which can be given to workers on low wages.

Why 'presumably more vulnerable' Xayide?

I made this point back on page two.

Social Housing isn't just Council housing.

Social Housing can be shared ownership too. That means you CAN HAVE A MORTAGE AND EARN MONEY AND NOT BE ON BENEFITS and be in social housing very very easily. There is incredible ignorance and snobbery about social housing and what it is, and who lives in it.

The scheme were were on, the terms were you had to have lived in the area for at least 3 years or had a close tie to the area (eg family or job), neither of you applying for the scheme could earn more than £30,000 a year (so you could have a combined income of £59,000!!!) and preference was given to those people with children (except for a couple of properties) or who were key workers or first time buyers.

It certainly wasn't aimed at people who were somehow taking from the system. It was aimed at helping local people get a step on the ladder that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise and remain in the area they had a social network, jobs and perhaps family.

This is a HUGE point. Social Housing can cover a multitude of bases. Its not just for the poverty stricken and putting a roof over their head. And it can be used to help numerous different groups in society on a range of different incomes - for the benefit of everyone, if done correctly.

Thats the crunch point - if done correctly, and done for more than just housing people in the cheapest way possible - this scheme could be a really good idea. It could equally be a total and utter disaster.

Council house tenants do pay for their houses, its called rent.

A lesser quality? what do you mean exactly?

Exactly Hmm. Which is why all this talk of segregation is pointless.

Usual - it's subsidised though, so not the same. Why are you determined to make out that council tenants have the same costs as people who pay market rate rent or mortgage? Tis the point of social housing, to make cheap housing for people who can't afford market rate.

Presumably more vunerable- the social housing needed must have a reason?

If its a low income - Less money - less coping capacity for things like increased transport costs.

If disabled or other illness is causing the need for social housing - which I think is common - probably need to access services more frequently and possible have issues doing that?

Round here it's very hard to get social housing - I'm not sure how wide spread that is country wide and it usually more than applied and waited a very long time. It not like my grandparents day where social housing was very common which TBH would take pressure of needing to buy.

I know plenty of people with cheap mortgages, why are you so determined to make all house owners out as struggling?

They still have to pay the same bills, council tax etc

Another one who thinks council house tenants live the life of bloody Riley.

Housing Association homes round here go to people on very low incomes -and they are from what I'm told not that easy to get.

Buying a house ISN'T cheap! Just because interest rates are low at the moment doesn't mean they always have been low, always will be low, and as for the small matter of a few tens of thousands for deposit... Oh and let's chuck in stamp duty, surveys, solicitors fees, paying for all maintenance and repairs.

There's a bit of a danger of house owner envy going on here

Eh? I haven't said anything about homeowners struggling, I don't think most do unless they overstretched themselves on mortgage. But really, do you disagree that council tenants shouldn't expect to pay far less, or get for free, a property of a standard far higher than typically available on the market?

Nobody should be allowed to live where they are unable to afford it is all well and good saying that people benefit from a wide social economic community but that causes more issues than it solves. I'm not saying we should segregate people but why should people who work hard to afford to live somewhere nice live next door to people who do very little for themselves and expect to live in a good area.

I know the old hospital is now luxury flats, and that's what developers would like to do with the rest of the council housing in adjacent areas, too. That's my point. There would be huge change in social character of the area, if this proposal were fully implemented. I don't like it.

I think they deserve a decent house, just like everyone else. yes. They are not lesser human beings.

Have you ever been in a typical council house at all?

I also cannot see why people have such a sense of entitlement when it comes to housing

Because it was promised that it would remain part of the Welfare State and did until the Thatcher years.

My family lost a fortune on the complusary purchase scheme (Liverpool) and that is what originally put us into social housing.

I lost my house after my husband was mis-diagnosed and died, out endowmant policy did not cover us, i know of a lot of people wholost out because of dodgy mortgage protection and policies.

I could afford a mortgage, it would be similar to my rent, but i cannot raise the deposit needed, i think that we do need to re-look lending criteria.

We are a developed country, a decent stable affordable place to live should be everyone entitlement.

The problem comes down to high house prices. Because when the house prices are high, rents are high, because a landlord needs to make a return on his investment. Hence the disparity between what someone in social housing can pay, and what a market rate would be.

Unfortunately I don't know what the solution is. We cannot afford to move, because we live in a high house-price area (outside of London). If we were simply to move into an identical house to our's, we would have to pay 10s of thousands of pounds in TAX, even before estate agent's fees, solicitor's fees, removal costs etc. To up-size therefore would be costing us about £50k even before we've added on the extra value of the new house.

That's not a good situation for the market to be in, where relatively well-off families are stuck. We didn't ask for the house prices to go stupid (they weren't when we bought this house), and we can't realise the value of the house.

But you can't artificially lower house prices, because of the problem of people who bought at a high price.

The only solution in my eyes is to build council and state owned housing in EVERY postcode, so that all areas have housing available which is out of the market place. But that is a huge investment, and building plots sell at a premium. But in my eyes that would be an investment worth making, would shore up the construction sector and would reduce benefits pay-outs in the long term. But the Tory government won't go for it, they prefer the market to lead the way. But until you take social housing out of the market place, this problem of people living in 'too valuable' houses will keep on recurring.