Social consequences of house price boom

[Upwind]

comment at the guardian.co.uk [click]

One of my pet subjects but I have not seen this in the mainstream media before:

"If food or energy prices were rising at 8% per year, let alone at 20% there would be outrage. There would certainly be alarm that such price rises were not sustainable and that increasing numbers of people were unable to afford a basic commodity.
Academics at the university of Aberdeen are currently running a project on this, and other, changes in society and believe that "when the implications of these developments are taken together, they hold the potential to produce profound and, as yet, largely unanticipated social consequences for this age cohort, as well as for UK society as a whole".
Astronomical prices mean that couples who cannot afford to buy, or move to larger properties, or lose half a joint income, are having children later in life when their fertility rates are lower. You do not have to own a home before you have children but many people desire at least some stability before they do so. "

I am biting my tongue

WEll yes, but whenever someone cant afford something on MN you always say 'well you need to earn more'. You know as well as I that not everyone can do that.

I grew up on a grotty council estate- I specifically DID NOT want what they had / have!

I don't want my kids to judge trheir success on whetehr they will own a house, its nice but its of minimal importance in the gtrand scheme- ahving been a tenant and a houseowner I know that.

Well said peachy

I wasn't talking about judging success based on what house you can own. I never said that. I was saying the remedies for your children to ensure they aren't in the position of some posters on here who wish they could afford somewhere better. For those for whom it is too late then the answer is to be happier with what you have I suppose.

Certainly most people want their chidlren to get on in some sense so I can understand if you're brought up on a council estate you might want the children to buy a house of their own but few people really want them to have less I suspect or few of the children do.

where we live on the south coast, my eldest son will still be living with us for the next 5-10 years to be able to afford to buy.

thank god he has a girlfriend whose father just won on a lottery syndicate.

so another social consequence - we have to put up with our children well into adulthood.

We're about to move house again (if it all goes according to plan), our third move (from a 2-bed flat just after we got married - didn't "live in sin" - to the 2-bed mid-terrace we're in now to a 3-bed family home with room to extend).

We can only afford to do this because we both work fulltime, and I'm doing as much overtime as I can atm. Even so, we're still borrowing a terrifying amount of money - just over 4x joint salary.

But it will mean we don't need to move again, since we're buying a house with potential - and we won't have to find the RIDICULOUS amount of stamp duty that the Government charge for doing NOTHING at all.

Rental prices around us are roughly equivalent to mortgages though - we looked at renting (fleetingly).

I wonder what effect sellers' packs will have on the market? Another £400 for NOTHING.

Twiglett, I agree about extended family being something that will die out even further than it already has - we're very fortunate to still live near both sets of parents (indeed, it's the only reason we can afford this house, as they share the childcare).

doesn't it actually make more extended families if you can't afford to move out of parents?

It does. Could solve the problem of ageing parents, money and care homes if you all live together I suppose. So when I'm old and difficult but more than 7 years off dying I can give the children all the money if there's any left by then and they have to have me for 2 months a year each.

People always did live in multiple occupation. I think TV etc perpetuates myths of how real people live in perfect houses as nuclear families even though most people have rarely been able to afford that in the UK. I am not however sure it was much easier for my father first buying in 1961 or me in 1982. In fact my parents didn't have children at all for the first 13 years of their marriage as they couldn't afford it. Also many men could not "afford" to get married until they were 40 in those days either. Now more women work earlier marriages are easier.

Multiple occupation is fine:

A) if you actually get on with your family (my Mum certainly could not have lived with my cruel Grandad)
B) if the family is so huge they're not desperate for you to get out (as in my Dad's family- 16 kids )
C) If there are jobs / education opportunities etc in the area- i'm thinking of the Valleys etc now
D) If the Government weren't building tiny, tiny starter homes that people buy and then get trapped in as prices go through the roof- anyone who has ever been in one will know that they abrely house one or two people, let alone an extended family.

I come from a family where everyone lives close by, but I ahd to leave to get an education. I won't move back- the palce is too limited- but I miss that. There are huge negatives though, as well as positives. For every person celebrating at the idea of communal family love and free childcare, you've got another terrified at the thought of a lack of housing forcing her to spend another few years with the peole or terrify her, or parents whose kids have stayed and who feels at real risk because she knows rightly those kids will be better off when she has gone.

you say extended families like its a good thing.

quite frankly there comes a time when kids should feck off. and return only for the occasional visit.

i know kids are for al ifetime but they dont have to live with oyu for the duration of it.

Kids NEED to build their own lives anyhow. The extended family is breaking up (as in all under one roof, rather than the living and being close sort) because poepl have options- the NHS and care for one. The few of us who expect our kids to stay with us do so because they have extraordinary needs,a nd thats to be regretted, because moving away (even if next door) meeting someone, perhaps having a family are all part of what it means to be an adult in our society. Thos that don't achieve this are missing out, imo.

Freckle - you said:
"when the new rules regarding deposits on privately rented properties come into force in April, a lot of properties will disappear from the rental market."
I don't know about these new rules. What are they, and can you elaborate on why you think rental properties will be affected?

Here are some questions:

1. If a family with children lives in a council house/flat, what happens when the children grow up/leave? Does that person/couple stay in the same flat, or are they made to move to a smaller place as they no longer "need" the same amount of room?

1. Was at least some of the current affordable housing problem caused by people who bought council flats/houses at a discounted rate under the "right to own" ruling? Did many of them "flip" the houses/flats for current market rates, thus making money but driving up the price of affordable housing?

1. In my area, every new build/development must include a percentage of affordable housing. Can people buying these flats/houses sell them for true market value a short time later? If so, should they be allowed to do that?

All honest questions from a non-Brit who sometimes struggles to understand how housing got into it's current state.

Here are some questions:

1. If a family with children lives in a council house/flat, what happens when the children grow up/leave? Does that person/couple stay in the same flat, or are they made to move to a smaller place as they no longer "need" the same amount of room?

answer

this much depends on the housing need in the area - but if you have a three bed house and only two grown adults live in what is called a family property - you can be asked to leave.

1. Was at least some of the current affordable housing problem caused by people who bought council flats/houses at a discounted rate under the "right to own" ruling? Did many of them "flip" the houses/flats for current market rates, thus making money but driving up the price of affordable housing?

yes

1. In my area, every new build/development must include a percentage of affordable housing. Can people buying these flats/houses sell them for true market value a short time later? If so, should they be allowed to do that?

what is affordable housing - you mean for key workers?

key workers have a subsidy - or a loan but have to remain in the property for X number of years.

yes, then they can sell for a profit.

is this a good thing.

i dont believe it is - although its a great incentive to those who are training as mature students to be social workers, teacher policemen etc.

The three bed council house does depend as you said Custy, my aprents have one and still live there- theres no policy of asking to move on there.

Affordable housing for essential workers is in vastly short supply, and is concentrated is areas where yes there are housing problems, but that doesnt mean those of us elsewhere dont need help.

I saw an advert from Cardiff City council- 1 bed flat for affordable housing- £99,000

custy - thanks for answers.

I asked about whether council tenants could be asked to move because of a situation I knew of a few years ago. A woman who did some babysitting for dd had come back to London from Ireland to be closer to her aging father. She was shocked by London housing/rent costs and took the decision that she/her dp/her dd would move in with her father. Her father was living alone in a 4 bedroom council house (or flat, not sure) and had room to take them in. I always wondered about that - on the one hand, it had been his home for many years so it seemed right that he should stay in it. On the other hand, he certainly no longer required that sort of space.

Not sure exactly what is considered 'affordable' in these new builds. But, they all have a logo/sign posted on the hoarding of the construction site proclaiming the number of flats that qualify for that title.

Another dumb question: what is the difference between HA and council?

with regards to property - HA's are allowed to raise money by mortgaging the properties they own.

Councils are not.

this means that often councils cannot put in the investment needed into their housing. and certainly on many large estates all over the country this lack of investment has had tenants voting to move to have the control and investment opportunities of HA's

however this means a gradual end of secure tenancies and the right to buy. few HA's that arn't ex council stock have the RTB.

HA's acan invest in new build properties and obtain money from the housing corporation to do this.

they can literally get millins of the HC for investment into new builds.

this means that in turn the HCorp ( a GOVT quango) is a reulatory body over the HA's along with another one called the 'audit commission' HAs have two regulatory bodies. we only take notice of the housing corp becuase they give us money.

The problem is how you get councils enough money to fix their stock without allowing the fools to build more houses.
In postwar Britain, the spectacular defects of council built and controlled housing has caused more misery than possibly any other single cause.

great indepth analysis there - solution?

Build more houses, to lower their price be that rent or buy.
The housing stock also has a huge lag between what we have, and what we need in terms of size and location of houses.

What Guardianista failed to spot in Thatcher's sale of council houses is that she wasn't selling assets. An asset is something you make a profit from, council housing lost money.
I'd dispose of all council housing, for whatever I could get, and that includes literally giving them away.

I don't see councils as having any role, except maybe in tiny niches like sheltered housing or homes adapted for those with special needs. Actually I don't think they should do that except in excpetional circumstances.
They way I'd help the disabled is give them a wad of cash adequate to either get their homes adapted, or buy ones built for their personal needs. Disability is too complex and varied for councils to cope with.
That's not trivial money of course, and I'd fund this by a national tax on development. Removing the bogus and corrupt "planning gain" mechanism.
By building more houses fewer people will be unable to afford it.
For those that fall into that section, we increase benefits to a level that allows them to do so. A critical problem with so-called "social housing" is that it is often in the wrong place for a given person in need of it.
They don't get a choice, yet they are the group who need flexibility most.
Poor people, and those with mobility problems have the most problem in getting to their work, yet most council homes are in big lumps often far from any plausible workplace.
Some people don't work, so there is no point them being near workplaces, but often need to be near hospitals and shops.
Block state housing of any form cannot serve these people well, even if councils were run properly, which they ain't.
My point is that poor does not equal stupud, and almost everyone can make better decisions about their lives than councils can make for
them.

As for "key workers" housing is a symptom, not a cure. We don't pay them enough, housing is an expensive and unjust way of dealing with that. Many KWs can't use the housing provided, and others who aren't in need get it. If you trust a nurse with your life, presumably you can trust her to choose a flat.

There is a tiny % of people, such as those who have profound learning issues who cannot look after themselves 100%, but shouldn't be in full care.
Those maybe might be in the "care" of councils, but that's only a tiny % of the housing stock.
With appropriate and transparent taxation, you can make the lives of poor people a lot better.

Never thought I would say it but I would vote for Domini Conner's policies

Agree- go DC

well, I agree that the market should be manipulated to bring prices down but disagree that a new building boom is the answer. They're building houses at a phenominal rate here in andalucia, but over 20% are empty. It's a stupid waste of land and resources. The developers just keep going because they know they'll make a profit in the end.

In the UK too, lots of houses are empty. why not fill those first, by taxing second homes, and trying a bit harder to make city slum areas habitable again. We probably will need to build too, but building is not the whole answer, or even half of it imo.

I also disgaree that councils should have no role. Many (not all) managed council housing perfectly well and the availability of council houses kept private rents down. They should build more council homes and also change rental law so that tenants have more security. I don't think they should bring back sitting tenancies, but they could change the law to something like Spain's - tenancies are for 1 year, but the tenant has the automatic right to renew for 5 years unless the landlord needs to live in the house.

NB when i say 20% are empty, I mean 20% of homes built in the last year are unsold. more than 20% are empty because everyone is buying holiday homes.but that's another argument.

Senpostrope I fear is to young to have lived under socialism giving her a happier and more optimistic view of coucils.
I grew upi n council housing, and it was taken as a given the only the "right" people would be given houses. Links with council staff were useful, as were plain brown envelopes.

well, I agree that the market should be manipulated to bring prices down but disagree that a new building boom is the answer. They're building houses at a phenominal rate here in andalucia, but over 20% are empty. It's a stupid waste of land and resources. The developers just keep going because they know they'll make a profit in the end.

Second homes are a favourite of those who remember the "good old days" but didn't have to live through them.
Even a passing acquaintance with economics will tell you that highly priced properties are going to be hoarded in this way less.
Also there simply aren't enough to raise enough revenue to to anything but make a few Welsh Guardian readers feel smug.

Her idea that there are lots of empty homes tells you why socialism is just such an oppressive thing to apply to the poor.
There are empty homes, but not near jobs, and often in a terrible stare. But hey, they're only poor people right, ? Some of them are dumb enough to be coloured as well. They should go where they are put. (For their own good of course).
I've even heard Guardian readers say that the jobs will follow them. Yes, really. Has Senapostrophe ever tried to get from a council estate by bus to a job ? Really ?
I have, wasn't nice at all, even my school bus route was changed by the local council to be nearer the richer kids houses. They got listened to, we didn't but we were working class so should have been more grateful to our Labour council.
Tories are no better. Recall how Westminster put tenants in condemned flats with asbestos to rig elections ?

As for fiddling with security of tenure, one has to ask why Senora thinks landlord do decant tenants ? If I had a regular customer, who paid on time why would have the hassle and possible risk of changing ?

Because of course there is such a housing shortage that prices often jump so hard that
the existing agreement is costing the landlord potential money.
The underlying problem is not landlords but planning regulations.

I find the idea of emulating Spanish ideas on homes really quite bizarre. The Senora has failed to mention the way that you can be kciked out of your home whether you own or rent if a "development" is declared by your local gangster/council. She knows this is not a rare thing, nor even tinged with a faint touch of social justice.