Jonathan Rosenberg
The government’s vision of a Big Society is an opportunity for the mutualisation of social housing.
A clear alternative
Subsidy is no match for revenue stream: it takes undue effort to obtain and has costly strings attached. Ultimately, grant is at the whim of someone else. And now it’s gone. So let’s concentrate on the alternative, which is for communities to own valuable assets, to be responsible for collecting their own money, and to be democratically accountable for spending it wisely according to local priorities.
In June 2008, a Conservative Party policy green paper - A stronger society: voluntary action in the 21st Century - called for government to ‘promote co-operatives and mutualisation as a way of transferring public assets and revenue streams to the voluntary sector… to play a bigger role in running and owning community assets and services’.
Take, for example, the huge potential for realising the Big Society vision to tackle ‘broken neighbourhoods’ on council estates. Here is a large-scale opportunity to devolve assets so as to empower thousands of poorer communities to transform their lives and environment.
Council estates in areas with high property values are especially ripe for transfer to democratically controlled, mutual housing associations, co-ops and community land trusts. Housing shortages guarantee revenues sufficient for these neighbourhoods to maintain their homes and surroundings to a high standard, fund their own community services, and generate surpluses for growth.
Even in lower value areas, the responsibility of ownership could empower the ingenuity of local people to find ways to benefit their community and environment. Mutualisation might also provide an ideal destiny for ALMOs.
Prime minister David Cameron asked recently: ‘What is it that we’re doing that’s stopping you from doing what you want to do? How can we stop stopping you?’
Legislating for community land trusts should be part of a wider strategy to mutualise the social housing sector. The Housing Minister could remove the barriers to social housing estates becoming independent community landlords by:
- Seeing through the proposed reform of the housing revenue account quickly and so as to facilitate viable stock transfers to mutual associations and community land trusts, thereby lifting the current moratorium on stock transfers and the stop on support for tenants who want to take over their homes.
- Making the regulations for S34A of the Housing Act 1985, which requires councils to co-operate with requests from tenant groups to transfer their estates.
- Encouraging housing associations and local authorities to ask their residents whether they want to take over their homes, and where they do, to support the mutualisation of assets into community associations and land trusts.
- Requiring local authorities to give registered housing associations first preference for housing homeless households at benefit-cap rents, so as to prevent leakage of taxpayer’s money, bolster revenue streams to support further mutualisation, and help finance more affordable housing.
- Freeing up housing associations to further diversify their income by offering differently priced accommodation, from traditional affordable housing through intermediate and market priced housing, whether for rent or for sale; and by investing in economic, retail or other development, such as green energy or broadband provision.
Implementing these practical steps could empower council-owned neighbourhoods and housing associations to make a great contribution to delivering the individual and social benefits envisaged by the Big Society.
Jonathan Rosenberg founded mutual housing association, Walterton & Elgin Community Homes, where he is a tenant and vice chair of the resident-controlled board.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
Sidney Webb | 26/07/2010 5:51 pm
JR - achievable and good. When such a way of doing things was last in existence central support and subsidy became required when the local community could no longer support the local poor without exponential local tax rises. As long as power truly transfers, such as the local government system in France, but central financial support remains, then anything is possible.
However, there is a clear item missing from your dream alternative - where are the extra homes required to redress the massive shortfall in social housing. Could it be your experience of taking transfer from a social landlord to establish a new social landlord is blocking your view that the new was based on homes that already existed?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 26/07/2010 10:00 pm
Some ideas in this articles are very good... But the one I do not thin is a good one is to give HAs incentives to diversify even more and to build even for market rental.
This makes no sense, because this would take the social out of social housing.
And it is amazing as most professionals, even those most educated and with most experience forget that the tenant is reason d'etre of social housing, like the patient is for the NHS and the student for the Education system, etc, etc.
and if the tenant is not satisfied as it should be, the whole social housing system is just a wasted operation
The priority of social tenants are good homes and good services and a REAL say (i.e. with power to dismiss boards and executives which fail them) in what matters most to them, i.e. their homes.
HAs have already become no more than financial institutions, and the tenants are paying the price for the focus gone onto financing and away from services and good homes.
HAs must return to put existent stock and services to their tenants at their centre.
However as new (and old) homes are needed, the governement should set up social housing organisation solely amining at buying and building new homes and move into these organisations all the HAs financial expertise and staff currently operating in this areas.
So we would have 1) HAs looking after tenants and looking after existing stock;
2) HAs offshoots which will become completely independent organisations focusing solely on buying and building stock which will be then passed onto the former. By being indpendent and acting solely on these areas these organisations would have the sharpness of private financial organisations.
As it is now, the most important departments, especially in the biggest HAs is the finance department, and this has to stop, because all tenants want is good services and want nothing to do with financing wheeling and dealing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 26/07/2010 10:17 pm
Co-ops would be a greater solution
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 26/07/2010 10:32 pm
Walterton & Elgin - name seems familiar somehow, not sure why, famous for something, I'm sure it will come back to me - anyone?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gavin Rider | 27/07/2010 11:31 am
Kass - one of the other big departments in the Housing Association head offices is the salaries department. Did you catch sight of the salaries of the Housing Association chief executives reported in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks back?
Housing Associations have mutated from operating for the good of their tenants to operating for the good of the Association - they are parasitic, they are not even symbiotic. An alternative system that can replace them is needed and it sounds as if mutual local housing trusts might be a reasonable option. There needs to be a retention of local focus to maintain the residents as a high priority.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 28/07/2010 9:50 am
Yes, Gavin, I agree with you.
If you look at the history of London and Quadrant you will see that they have pursued a policy of becoming bigger and bigger and in my opinion this has left existing tenants and existing housing old stock in a sorry state.
In this day and age we tenants have to live in victorian conditions with no sound insulation and all other problems.
About salaries, yes, there is this scandal going on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment