Gavin Rider
Recent activity
Comments (1765)
-
Comment on: Shapps: housing supply will not meet demand
Joe - note also that by making social housing cost the same as open market housing (set by local conditions) there could be no argument that anyone was unjustly receiving a benefit from the taxpayer. All the largely racism-motivated sentiment of the likes of the BNP - claiming that immigrants are getting benefits from the taxpayer by living in social housing - would evaporate overnight.
-
Comment on: Shapps: housing supply will not meet demand
Joe - your last two paragraphs are essentially dealing with what I have been saying about the cost of social housing to the tenants.
My view is that the price people should have to pay for housing should be set by the market, so that people are not attracted into the social sector purely for the financial advantage it offers them over open market housing.
In my view, social housing should essentially pay for itself. It may need a capital injection by means of a low-interest loan from the government but there should be no end-price subsidy that is being paid for by the taxpayer.
If tenants need financial assistance because they are on low incomes, they should receive it through the benefits system, on the basis of means-tested individual needs assessment, not by the "lottery" system of whether they are lucky enough to be allocated a social home.
With social housing competing directly with PRS housing, the lower cost base in social housing (and the lack of profit extraction) would in the longer term make the social sector the dominant factor defining rent levels in the market.
Providing that all profit generated by the sector was reinvested in new social housing provision (and not taken out in salary and bonuses by fat-cat executives running the operations) then this would lead to faster growth in the social sector than would be possible in the PRS - leading to long-term control of rents and accelerated housing supply. -
Comment on: Shapps: housing supply will not meet demand
...actually, I don't ENTIRELY agree with what you say, but I agree with the general thrust of it and it is not worth nit-picking the details on which I don't quite agree, because they are trivial.
-
Comment on: Shapps: housing supply will not meet demand
Joe - my "one-trick-pony" argument as you put it is called FOCUS. It is about prioritising action where it is most likely to have the best result, or in economic terms investing where there is likely to be the best return on that investment. It has nothing whatever to do with racism (which is the "one-trick-pony" response that comes from you, Chris and Omega 3 to any of the facts and figures I have posted).
As for your other points about the economic benefits of social housing, I entirely agree with you.
I would far rather see public money invested in social housing construction by local authorities than giving subsidies to housing associations for pseudo-affordable housing or tax breaks and other policy-related incentives (e.g. the NPPF) to the construction industry on the basis that "it is good for the economy" when in fact the only ones it is good for is the businesses themselves and a bucketful of chief executives supposedly working for "not for profit" organisations who are on six figure salaries. -
Comment on: MPs urge government to scrap council borrowing caps
Chris - OMG do you have nothing more constructive to offer the discussion than that?
Discussions (0)
Gavin Rider has not added any discussions yet.
Posts (26)
-
Posted in: Parlour House rates
Derren - I believe this is up to the individual provider to decide. If it is being let as a four-bed property to a tenant who is using it as such, it should be charged as a four-bed. There is a property near me that is being charged for on that basis and there is such a high demand for larger homes that it is never likely to be let as a three-bed, even though that is what it was originally intended to be.
-
Posted in: Rent increase for 2011/12
Actually, Derren's observations go to show that an immense amount of time and effort goes on working out subsidies, compensations, fixed rates of permitted increases etc. None of this is constructive.
It would be better if social housing were pegged to the open market housing price, not RPI. Within the industry there are already mechanisms to measure house pricing and these can be used to determine what the rental price for any house should be, on the open market.
That rent, plus a small supplement to charge for security of tenure (if it is given) should be charged. Then Housing Benefit should be paid to tenants who need it, to bring the rent they pay down to a level they can afford. The benefit would be administered in the same way it is currently worked out. Benefit would be paid directly to the housing provider.
The income from a provider's housing stock would be based on the value in the open market, significantly boosting income. This extra rental income would replace the HCA and local authority grants that currently have to be paid to support housing association developments. The absence of these other grant funding routes and the administration of them would compensate for higher payments and staffing in the HB system.
Overall the total amount of taxpayer money needed to subsidise the social housing sector and allow it to operate as a not-for profit (and not-for-loss) entity is fixed, so the cost to the taxpayer by having to pay housing benefit would be no more than current grants and other subsidies. However, the higher rental income from tenants who could afford market rent but were previously not paying it would reduce the burden on the taxpayer.
Ultimately the social sector should become fully integrated into the normal housing market. By competing equally with other providers but on a non-profit basis this should help to suppress private sector rents.
-
Posted in: Rent increase for 2011/12
Oh dear, I see Chris/F451 is still spouting his "social housing is not subsidised" nonsense.
May I suggest checking out the document "'Table 651: Housing finance: Local Authority expenditure and income on housing from the Housing Revenue Account, England 1, 1997-98 to 2008-09" It shows a considerable level of housing subsidy being provided over those years (£24bn).
Or how about "Rural Housing Economic Viability Toolkit – Stage 1 Report" available from the HCA.
This document details the economics of many rural affordable housing developments and providers. For example, English Rural Housing Association reports the accounting of ten of their sites, and 43% of the cost is covered by HCA and local authority grants.
One other thing that becomes apparent from the HCA document is that even though these housing providers are supposedly "not for profit" organisations, there are plenty of people that are making handsome livings partly thanks to the taxpayer subsidy. For example, the ERHA costs listing includes a "construction consultant" who is paid a large chunk of money for every project. Overall, out of £813,333 total costs, £447,433 went to the "Construction Consultant" while legal costs were just £146,232.
Looks like a very lucrative gravy train to me.
-
Posted in: DEMONISATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING TENANTS
Chris - I agree with you that converting an existing social home to private ownership and then replacing it with a new social home would lead to expansion of the village, but that is always going to be the case when providing additional housing that is needed.
The difference in doing it this way is that there would be a directly proven, 100% incontrovertible justification for building the new social housing.
At present huge quantities of new social housing is being foisted on rural communities by housing associations, rural housing enablers and local authorities themselves, who are fabricating the evidence of the local need for that housing, simply to allow developers to maximise their profits by building on farm land that is 20x cheaper than normal development land.
As you say, "Wouldn't it be better to provide social housing against a reasonable assessment of need". That is precisely what I am campaigning about. Currently the assessment of need is far from reasonable - it is grossly exaggerated to promote more housing construction for the financial advantage to the economy, the developer and the land owner, not for reasons of satisfying real local housing need.
-
Posted in: DEMONISATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING TENANTS
Chris - As I have explained before, if a long-term social housing tenant buys the home he is occupying it does not change the availability of social housing for newly arising households. He is still living in his home and whether he is renting it or owning it, it is not available to a new household.
The rate of new household generation normally exceeds the relet rate of social housing in rural communities, and in any case relets are prioritised on the basis of the applicant's housing needs score, so a new household would be classed in Band D - the lowest priority - and hence unlikely to be allocated a social home if one became available.
Thus, RtB sales have no impact on the availability of affordable housing for new young families, except when they have an equal right to try and buy it on the open market. My first home was an ex-council house and buying such a property was the only way that I could afford to get onto the property ladder. So RtB sales certainly helped me as a first-time buyer and they have helped many others - not just social housing tenants who buy their home - in exactly the same way.
It all helps to keep the housing market moving and it helps to get young people into home ownership, even in rural communities (which was where my first house was located).
I have no idea what view the Daily Mail has expressed - I don't read it. I don't believe the Daily Mail is the official mouthpiece of the government.