Can someone explain G. Brown's housing policy?

[jetjets]

Message withdrawn

Sorry, but I find shared ownership to be a con and if that's the best GB can come up with, well, let's just say I'm not surprised.

I've never really thought about the repairs and maintenance bit

I suppose the housing association would take into account who pays repairs when fixing the rent on their half.

I guess the bit about shared ownership properties being the least saleable portion of a housing developement site comes down to profit maximisation and the "beggars can't be choosers" attitude. I.E. do people want to take steps towards owning their own home in the future or only if it is in a dream location and at a below market price with someone else still responsible for the repairs.

One local site with the required percentage of social housing, now given over to shared ownership properties is still far nicer than some of the local council estates where the "tenants" could have ended up. Maybe others are not so nice but if they are away from problem areas, maybe the view is not so important. Harsh but true for some families trying to keep their children from being influenced by the attitude of their neighbours.

Message withdrawn

fuww, who said that just because you work for the public sector you are a 'begger'? hardly great for a recruitment drive (although I accept you may come back with 'that's not what I ment' ) the bottom line is that many people are not paid a living wage and that needs to be dealt with somehow. If people can't be paid a living wage here then they will go somewhere where they can, thereby the gen public get nothing back for all the taxes 'invested' in their training.
I don't think anyone said that shared ownership buyers expect the best flat at a knock down price with free maintenance but I think it is reasonable to expect not the opposite (IYSWIM).
I also don't think the comparison with council flats is valid.
A lot of people think shared ownership is best avoided and that the overinflated property market should be dealt with not boosted by the gov. I'm surprised more don't see that as a waste of their taxes.

I think there are only a small number of mumsnetters with children born in the 80s. I was born in the 70s and managed to get on the housing ladder before prices went out of our reach.

1dilemma,

I mean't that must be the attitude of profit maximising businesses building/selling these shared ownership properties.

It does sound like a raw deal indeed but anyone dabbling in the property market will be at the mercy of market increases.

I personally think there are properties in this country standing empty due to the concentration of job opportunities in one or two major areas.

I'd like to see GB tackle this and forget about building more houses in the South East of England.

That is, I'd like to see him offer incentives to some major employers to move their business operations to regions of low housing costs. Employees can follow or be compensated but it would take housing pressure off overcrowded and overpriced accordingly areas.

The shared-ownership thing is losing it's lustre for me. TBH, I am not sure that we will be able to get a house any other way in our area. We cannot even afford a masionnette, and the houses are going like hot cakes. DH earns a good salary and we are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to entitlement for the shared ownership scheme.

Despite all this, I guess we shall have to wait until DS is at school and I have gone back to work. Hopefully the market will be doing something different in a couple of years.

It's fracking ridiculous.

FUWW, none of the shared ownership properties that I have looked at have been below market value or had free maintenance.

I'm not surprised, that would be subsidised ownership rather than shared ownership.

I guess the logic behind the owner/tenant party being responsible for all the repairs is to mimic true ownership. The theory being that if the tenant can't afford to maintain the property in addition to mortgage/rent on balance then it is not sensible for them to consider purchasing their own home.

Truly though, it does seem to be an overhyped option compared to the reality of what you actually end up with.

Message withdrawn

Ha Ha, see the lovely car the property developer is riding round in ! That's where the money goes.

Has GB even got a hope of getting more shared ownership deals off the ground ?

I prefer the idea of shifting large numbers of job opportunities to areas of lower housing cost/large numbers of redundant properties (if there are any left after John Prescott's pathfinder or "knock 'em all down !" initiative)

Of course property prices would eventually gradually rise in the areas in which the number of job opportunities rose but it would allow those initially taking up the new jobs to get in at the lower level before the increased demand for housing close to the jobs had its slightly delayed effect. It could also put the local homeowner on a more equal footing with other regions of the country giving them more flexibility in moving for different work opportunties.

It wouldn't however do much for those who struggled to afford the local housing stock before the influx of jobs except give them better earning opportunities which might enable them to buy, if they want to, eventually.

Message withdrawn

fuww agree with your general idea of moving jobs around!!!!

I don't agree with moving jobs around.

So what happens? Prices rise in the area where the shift happens when peoples' jobs move and yet the rest of the wages stay the same?

So then you get folk who are pissed off they have to move just to keep their jobs and folk who are pissed off because incomers are making higher whack than they are and with cash in their pockets to push prices higher?

That's going to solve lots!

This whole thing is like binge drinking - it's a no hoper.

It's a Saxon throwback. It's so ingrained in British culture that you must own something, even if it's the con that is shared ownership, or you're scum, just like if you start drinking, you have to just go, go, go till you're sick.

Affordable housing . . . to rent.

Long-term. No passing it on when your granny dies. It's you and your spouse and when you both go that's it.

But like that's ever going to happen!

Haahaahaa.

Everything else is just a crock and a con and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that.

Which says a lot about GB and all his cadres.

Education, education, education.

NOT!

Common sense, common sense, common sense.

But that in your pipe and smoke it, GB.

Affordable housing to rent when so many others buy just perpetuates the paying people below living wages/inequality etc (I'm tired to think of right words sorry).
What's needed is to sort out the twisting of the market that has come from buy to let (again lots of Europeans rent and lots who do rent from big organisations like pension/investment funds so whole tennancy is completely different).
Moving jobs around has some logic you're right many wont move thereby you create jobs in areas outside London/big urban areas . The idea is that if you can move eg LLoyds bank headquarters out of London that's a whole load of employees who don't need London weighting/railcard allowance etc etc and can eventually be paid a salary more in keeping with others in local area. With current inequalities in cast of living in UK a whole load could be saved if you could cut public sector salaries for those living in affordable areas (and that is compatable with paying a living wage). Sorry if lots of this doesn't make sense I'm really tired.