Mick Sweeney

• Comment on: ...but not like this

  Mick Sweeney's comment | 20/08/2010 11:16 am

  Christopher
  Thanks for your kind comments about our family new homes programme.
  I dont think it would be perpetual means testing. Once a year would suffice. If you apply for a mortgage you have to prove income and provide bank statements. We could do something similar once a year. The cost would be minimal.
  If 100 one bed tenanted flats went to market rent at £150 ow the annual additional revenue would be £364,000. his would support a new loan of £6m. If that attracted another £6m grant we could build 60 new homes, or 30 if no grant.
  Not a bad outcome, extra homes, better off tenants paying a fairer rent ( but still only 30% income), and mixed communities preserved.
  Mick

• Comment on: ...but not like this

  Mick Sweeney's comment | 19/08/2010 12:09 pm

  Christopher,
  It cant be a tax if we are talking about paying a rent, be it subsidised affordable, a bit less subsidised intermediate, or market. And this would be instead of ending tenancies for the better off dont forget.
  Our 2009/10 larger homes target was 235, and we built 507
  Cheers
  
  Mick

• Comment on: ...but not like this

  Mick Sweeney's comment | 19/08/2010 11:06 am

  PSR,
  This isnt about preventing individual improvement; its an alternative to the suggestion mooted by David Cameron that tenants whose circumstances improve should have to give up their tenancy.
  Look at it this way. take a one bed flat, London affordable rent £80 a week. If you are on the minimum wage £240 a week you will be paying about 30% wages in rent.
  If your wage increases by 50% to £360 pw you would pay an intermediate rent at £120 p.w., still about 30% of your wage
  If you get the average London salary of £25K pa or more,you would pay a market rent of £150 pw, still about 30% of your income
  This is fair to tenants and doesnt take away incentives to improve.
  The extra revenue would be used to borrow more to build more affordable homes
  I'm sure our tenants would agree thats fair. If Govt. allows us to do this we will consult
  
  Cheers
  
  mick

• Comment on: ...but not like this

  Mick Sweeney's comment | 18/08/2010 5:57 pm

  PSR
  In principle I think the rent paid should be linked to salary/ wages earned. To keep it as non bureaucratic as possible there could be three rents, affordable, as now; intermediate( say 25% below market rent) and market rent.it would depend on local circumstances accross the country, but those on bottom quartile wages would pay the affordable rent, those on third quartile wages would pay the intermediate rent, and those on above average wages, top and second quartile would pay the market rent.
  If tenants circumstances changed for the worse, their rent would be reduced. This is something we have all been trying to achieve with shared ownership, allowing shared owners to staircase down if they find themselves in worse financial circumstances.The same should apply to tenants.
  I dont think in my system anyone would need to be "removed from their secure home" as their rent would be related to their income.

• Comment on: ...but not like this

  Mick Sweeney's comment | 18/08/2010 5:05 pm

  Alpha One
  I would be relaxed about someone staying in a rented home if they paid a market rent when they earned a decent wage. I'm reluctant to deny their freedom to choose. If they are in private rented accommodation they would not be forced to move, although I accept the landlord could not renew their tenancy, which would be unlikely if they were good tenants. They wouldnt be denying a social home to someone in need, as most associations would use the additional income to help build new homes. So we keep mixed communities, the better off pay a fair rent, and we get to build more homes. Everyone wins and no one is forced to move

Mick Sweeney has not added any discussions yet.

Mick Sweeney has not added any posts yet.