Council homes: which one is it; envy or stigma?

[EddyF]

Or both? When I read threads on here or even in general, anyone posting about waiting for a council home, or about their council home, the replies tend to be "be grateful, you've got a 'free' flat" blah blah blah. But on the another hand, there's is always a whiff of 'stigma' attached to them and not being the first choice for most people. But if the latter is the case, why does it cause outrage/sneers that people should be grateful for paying lower rent etc?

I know someone is a bit of a snob (I like them though😄) who lives in a London typical 70s brick solid small flat with mixture of houses and other flats in the area. Her rent is so reasonable. She complains a LOT about the lack of attractiveness of her building. Inside her flat is GORGEOUS to most people's standards. Brilliantly decorated, high end stuff, kitchen and bathroom she ripped out herself years ago with no permission from the council (as most of her neighbours). Honestly it's beautiful inside. The block is outdated. This person I know can afford to move out. She complains the council encourage their buildings to be attached to 'roughness' hence why council properties have a stigma, and of she had 'proper' money, she would be put like a shot. She stays bcos she knows she has a good deal. Her 19 yr daughter is at uni, had her at 17, brought up her child with no trouble in the same property/area. It's sad she cannot see the beauty in her environment (a struggling London borough) but could be worse. All of London has pockets of deprivation. Her flat inside is so nice I just can't see the issue!

How can it be in 2019 that there is a stigma to housing when everyone knows the difficulties of getting up on the ladder?

I feel like I may have gone of tangent here😅.

Well I think they should make council housing so that it’s free and for the most deserving people only. So the disabled, single parents, single earner households where the earner is on a low income, etc. Welfare is to be a safety net, not a comfort blanket. Let’s help the poor a lot more than we do now at the expense of those who can actually afford rent or mortgages.

FREE?
And who gets to judge who is more deserving? I’m a single mum and I don’t want a free house

Silvery Surfer .I agree wholeheartedly ! Many people who are in Council houses ,are blocking young/single parent families from getting the help they need. There is also an assumption that if you live in private housing you are "well off" or middle class somehow .Many people have worked long and hard and made many sacrifices along the way .My DS has no savings ,and has to work p/t in her 50s .Still got a M/G probably will have to have RIO as well . Probably should have tried for a Council house hmm....!

Many people who can well afford to move out I meant!

Well a free house would be nice in theory but as there are not enough council houses anyway ,it would cause even more resentment than it straddles ,what about minimum wage workers who can't get one it and has to pay full rent e.g. but their colleague has one etc we have disabled child and dh works in a low paid job and already ie a housing association house and pay rent but what about families in a similar position that don't live in social housing ?

It already does !!

Neither.

Social housing is a vital part of the housing mix. My parents and husband grew up in council houses.

I am neither envious of people who live in council houses nor do I see anything wrong with them.

Council housing is not free - they pay rent, if someone is poor enough they may effectively pay no rent due to housing benefit, but I have known similar for people in private rental.

It causes resentment, stigma and 'envy' because most people who have never used social or council housing have the sum total of their experience from reading the media and the myths that are perpetuated, and the stereotypes that exist re-enforced. They may well be struggling themselves and there needs to be someone to blame, they work hard, maybe to own a home, they know that they're exhausted and ground down doing this, the sacrifices they've made and cannot understand how someone else, who doesn't own, might be making the same sacrifices and being just as ground down and work just as hard to afford a roof over their heads that will actually never be theirs to own. Some people do not understand that others simply don't have the same choices and the choice for them is that or literally nothing. And we're not taking about the most vulnerable in society, least able to support themselves, we're talking about people like me who work full time, and pay rent out of wages to social housing schemes that reinvest in their properties and the communities. I cannot afford to buy, I've a small amount of savings now I'm in social housing, however I constantly lived up to the hilt when in private, savings gone every couple of years on having to move again, back to square one. Private renting is precarious and I've lived in places that were unsafe, I've had to move every 18 months to 2 years because of someone else's choice. I work hard, I now have some security to a)save and maybe one day have enough for a deposit and b) am secure so those savings as meagre as they are won't be blown yet again on another set of moving, first month's rent and bond, and I may be able to actually get somewhere. Why on earth would I blow that chance and go back to the unreliability of private rent and no chance whatsoever of saving anything for the possibility of if not me, DD having a deposit for a mortgage (by the time I have enough I'll probably be too old!) But as usual the poorest in society are expected to be the most socially responsible.
It will never matter how many times you say that most council housing is now social housing, non for profit and that you get less therefore pay less.
How many times you say that for some HAs you have to be working, and show you can afford the rent.
How many times you say that HAs need a mix, which includes working families to make their communities work.
How many times you prove you work just as hard as, and often pay a similar or higher amount in rent as a mortgage is.

Some people will still believe the free house, lazy scrounger crap, and continue to spout it because they know a single mum on their road that is in her dressing gown at 3pm, who's curtains are always closed 5 days out of 7 and see her come home mid morning with shopping every day and 'know' she's got an easy ride, too lazy to work, getting cheaper housing and all these benefits. They wouldn't even entertain the idea that maybe she's in her dressing gown at 3pm with all the curtains closed 5 days a week because she works permanent ft nights, and therefore doesn't qualify for all these non existent generous benefits is exhausted and worrying about paying the bills the same as they are. Gets her shopping a bit at a time because she has to carry it home. Nope, can't possibly be that, it's far easier to believe she's a lazy layabout scrounger and is being supported by the state to be such.

I agree wholeheartedly ! Many people who are in Council houses ,are blocking young/single parent families from getting the help they need

BULLSHIT There have been many many homes lost through regeneration/gentrification.

There is evidence of this all over the country. And ive posted a few examples here.

AND in my home own they have pulled down social housing BUNGALOWS which WERE structurally sound and replaced them with flats which are more expensive to rent.

So where are you expecting pensioners to go exactly.

municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/cressingham-gardens-lambeth-2/

REPORT THIS AD

REPORT THIS AD

According to Ken Livingstone, Hollamby ‘passionately believed that council housing should be as good if not better than private housing’. (3) In Cressingham Gardens he triumphantly achieved this.

IMG_0088 (a)In all, 290 homes were planned. A small extension to the scheme at its northern perimeter raised this to 306. Construction began on the £1.58m contract in May 1971 with an estimated completion date of January 1974. In those turbulent times within the building trade, by the summer of 1972 the contractors were already over six months behind schedule and in October work was halted by a national building strike. The job was finished by direct labour and eventually completed in 1978.

And that, in a sense, should be the end of the story. The estate has been a good home to generations of residents – as they’ll tell you themselves: (4

It was like a fairy-tale, so beautiful

Of the 300 homes currently occupied, almost 70 per cent are still rented from the Council (or Lambeth Living in its current incarnation). While there have been problems of crime and anti-social behaviour in the past, Cressingham now ‘is seen as a safe place’ and its crime rate is lower than surrounding areas

Overwhelmingly, residents talk of their friendly neighbours and the estate’s strong sense of community – they look out for each other, keep an eye on each other’s children. It’s what planners call ‘natural surveillance’ nowadays. It’s really just part of that ‘village-like’ feel that Hollamby hearkened to all those years ago.

This is then by all accounts a success story except for the fact that the estate has, like the rest of us, grown older. Six flats at the northern end of the estate have been empty for sixteen years due to subsidence. It’s stated that repairs would cost £260,000 – a relatively small amount given the overall shortage of social housing and some question why the Council has allowed these flats to remain empty for so long

A 2013 Council survey claimed that 40 per cent of council homes did not meet the current Decent Homes standard. The estate’s supporters query the figure which appears to result from a more general stock review carried out in 2012.

Structural surveyors, commissioned to carry out an estate-wide survey which might achieve ‘a common understanding, concluded that the structural condition of the homes was ‘generally acceptable’ though localised areas did ‘warrant repair’. It’s obvious that failing zinc roofs and guttering require replacement but the report also makes it clear that many non-structural and drainage problems have been caused by poor tree maintenance over the years. (5)

Lambeth has claimed it will cost £3.4m to carry out such works. It has also, in the meantime, raised the spectre of regeneration. (6)

Residents of other London estates – such as the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark and Woodberry Down in Hackney – understand the potential implications of such plans well. Higher density housing, new registered social housing landlords and increased rents, the loss of social housing units (homes to the people who need them), ‘affordable’ rents which are a travesty of the term, and a sell-off of prime real estate to private developers have all been central elements of the regeneration schemes implemented to date

Currently, the Council claims a range of options are still on the table, including refurbishment only, infill, various partial redevelopments and comprehensive redevelopment. (7) Faced with resident protest, it has begun what appears to be a more authentic process of consultation though those most fearful of the regeneration option question its sincerity. Many residents also question why the estate has been so poorly maintained over many years and fear a hidden agenda. A number of estates subject to ‘regeneration’ have been run down until demolition was claimed as the only viable option

A reminder of what i wrote upthread.

And the cognitive dissonance really is something else The same posters go on threads advising other posters not to buy a place near social housing as its got a "reputation" When they are the ones who want it this way and are crying out for it to stay this way. They wanted and continue to want the residulisation but at the same time advise people they consider to be more worthy not to buy a house near the estate that is now what they wanted it to be!!

And..................Exhibit A
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3752886-Would-this-put-you-off-buying-a-house-Please-be-honest?pg=1

My housing association flat is £760 per month. It's a tiny 3 bed with one double and two single bedrooms, small windowless bathroom, and a small open plan lounge/kitchen. The single rooms really are singles, very tiny rooms, with no balcony and no outside space. The rent is comparable to a property of the same size in this area. My part of the rent is paid as I am on disability benefits and unable to work at present, my DS (20) and DD (19) both pay their part of the rent, as they work. I am very grateful to have my place, I moved in here 5 years ago. There's no way I could manage moving again, physically and mentally. We moved 7 times while my kids were growing up, because of insecure private rented properties, and had to move towns and change school twice when they were in primary school because I couldn't find anywhere at all that I could afford to rent.

I do agree that something needs to be done about people having larger properties than they need, when there are not enough family properties available, but that's at least partly the fault of the housing department rules. You have to find a property to exchange to when you want to downsize. That is not always easy or possible. It should be that if you want to free up a larger property by moving into a smaller one that you are allocated the right points so you can bid on smaller properties, freeing up a larger place for those that need it. When DS leaves home I'll look for a smaller place to exchange to, but I really don't see it being easy.