Is there not something like 600,000 empty houses/flats in England though, not sure if that relevant here however but maybe it's a complete lack of management that's more to blame.
Anyway it must be hellish being homeless as a kid.
Nearly 100,000 children in England 'homeless'.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Is there not something like 600,000 empty houses/flats in England though, not sure if that relevant here however but maybe it's a complete lack of management that's more to blame.
Anyway it must be hellish being homeless as a kid.
Places can be empty for a variety of reasons, such as property speculation. Or being unfit for human habitation (condemned, etc).
If they're privately owned, then what can the council do, anyhow? Can't just seize them.
Because this isn't intended to be used as permanent residence. I had a friend who was made homeless, ended up in a halfway house that cost £60 a night!!
You would hope here there are clauses for houses owned but not used...Then agaiun I guess if you've paid off the mortgage you can do what you like with the place
The only good thing is that they are being caught and not living in the streets. It's a sad state of affairs.
Nope, but you can slap a fat tax on them which makes it unattractive to buy property and leave it unused.
Blatantly misleading headline, but there is a real problem with housing in this country. Not sure what the best response to it is though.
The postwar council housing experiment didn't really work, so I wonder if a more free market approach might? Although that would involve a massive scaling back of planning law and building on greenfield sites (which a majority would probably find unacceptable).
The postwar council housing experiment didn't really work, so I wonder if a more free market approach might? Although that would involve a massive scaling back of planning law and building on greenfield sites (which a majority would probably find unacceptable).
Think we're going to need to build up, like other European countries do. Blocks of high-rise flats.
We can't just continue to build on the fields and greenfield sites, as we are doing at the moment. Brownfield sites are normally not as attractive to developers due to the fact that there's usually something that needs clearing up/fixing before they can be used for housing.
We can't just continue to build on the fields and greenfield sites, as we are doing at the moment. Brownfield sites are normally not as attractive to developers due to the fact that there's usually something that needs clearing up/fixing before they can be used for housing.
High-rise flats are ****. No one would want to live in or near them and they aren't necessarily that cost effective.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
The combination between lack of investment and greed of those capitalising on the demands of rising house prices means that most young people will never be able to afford to rent a property let alone own their own. There surely has to come a point where the market just seizes and collapses because there's no one one coming from the bottom.
I don't see a solution or see it getting better any time soon. No matter how much they build, the problem's gone too far gone. And yes, like it or not net migration does have an affect on the demands and strain on the system which is already at boiling point.
I don't see a solution or see it getting better any time soon. No matter how much they build, the problem's gone too far gone. And yes, like it or not net migration does have an affect on the demands and strain on the system which is already at boiling point.
More free market? God I hope not.
All we need to do..
- Tax second homes, massively
- Bigger council tax bills for second homes (not a discount for crying out loud!)
- Wipe out all tax breaks for landlords
- Create better legislation for tenants (longer tenancies, better protection etc.)
- Introduce rent control, i.e. prevent rents increasing more than RPI+1%
- Seize empty homes that have been bought to simply rise in value and make a profit for their absent owners
- Ban 'companies' buying homes and all the tax dodges that go with it
- Ban foreigner nationals buying properties (before you cry 'racist' why should somebody who lives in another country need to own a home in Central London?)
- Better legislation against NIMBYs worried about their houses dropping in value and preventing more homes being built
- Prevent housebuilders from marketing properties overseas (with Boris in tow
) before London- Potential owner-occupiers should get priority over all BTL offers in the marketplace, by default. No questions
- Reward pensioners for downsizing
Simples.
what was rubbish about that - the facts are there in the OP, is it a numeracy issue for you or something?
Be that as it may, it allows more housing to be built on less land. As I said, we cannot just carry on eating into our fields and countryside.
Besides, if they can make a skyscraper look elegant, I don't really see why they couldn't make an attractive looking block of flats.
But if we're going to keep growing with our limited living space, building up is the only solution I can see.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 92,035
- Location
- Falling...
Aren't there lots of derelict or at least unused homes that have been boarded up but shouldn't cost much to make liveable? From what I've read they are generally more of them in the north but whilst I understand it is disruptive couldn't people move to places where housing is available? Surely that must be better than being "technically homeless"? Also wouldn't it be cheaper for a council or government to relocate people to these homes as well as purchasing them, do them up to a basic standard rather than pay for B&Bs and the constant administration of people?
Clearly new homes also need to be built too, I'm not denying that.
http://www.emptyhomes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Empty-homes-in-England.pdf
There are some quite amazing stats in there!
Clearly new homes also need to be built too, I'm not denying that.
http://www.emptyhomes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Empty-homes-in-England.pdf
There are some quite amazing stats in there!
We could if we changed the law to say vacant properties could be compulsory purchased. Just a thought.
We tried building up in the past, and it resulted in terrible living conditions. We've spent the last two decades blowing up our follies. I agree with you btw, but can we do it without repeating these mistakes?
More free market? God I hope not.
All we need to do..
- Tax second homes, massively
- Bigger council tax bills for second homes (not a discount for crying out loud!)
- Wipe out all tax breaks for landlords
- Create better legislation for tenants (longer tenancies, better protection etc.)
- Introduce rent control, i.e. prevent rents increasing more than RPI+1%
- Seize empty homes that have been bought to simply rise in value and make a profit for their absent owners
- Ban 'companies' buying homes and all the tax dodges that go with it
- Ban foreigner nationals buying properties (before you cry 'racist' why should somebody who lives in another country need to own a home in Central London?)
- Better legislation against NIMBYs worried about their houses dropping in value and preventing more homes being built
- Prevent housebuilders from marketing properties overseas (with Boris in tow
- Potential owner-occupiers should get priority over all BTL offers in the marketplace, by default. No questions
- Reward pensioners for downsizing
Simples.
I don't disagree, but you're forgetting one thing: we have a Tory government.
Good luck with any of those, however sensible. The Torys know who they represent (unlike Labour) and it isn't the homeless. And under a Tory govt, the interests of landlords, property developers and land owners are weighted a lot higher than the rest of us.
My sister become homeless because of her abusive partner, she got put up in temp accommodation, which some on here may class at a home, where she had to share the place with lots of other strangers with her child, she was forced into doing this in order to get a house and they wouldn't readily give them out if she stayed with me..
I wouldn't say its a good environment for kids or anyone to grow up in and the lack of compassion for your own in England on this Forum I think is a little crazy, thankfully this forum doesn't represent how the rest of the country feels about the situation..
I wouldn't say its a good environment for kids or anyone to grow up in and the lack of compassion for your own in England on this Forum I think is a little crazy, thankfully this forum doesn't represent how the rest of the country feels about the situation..
You could start by designing high rise accommodation that middle class people would enjoy living in, rather than building cramped, overcrowded slums with tiny rooms and poor facilities. Have some nice parks nearby, and make the area look nice.
A hotel is basically high-rise living accommodation, and there are plenty of really posh hotels that cost a fortune.
But it all depends on who is designing and building these things, and what their motivation is. If it's maximum profit, then you'll get a nice gray concrete box, with tiny rooms, barely any windows, cramming as many people in as possible with no consideration to living standards. The last decade has shown what happens if you let developers focus entirely on their own profits, with no other considerations.