Is "affordable housing" a red herring when it comes to roughsleepers?

Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,867
Location
Wales
Been in Manchester a fair bit over the weekend and today and its staggering just how many homless/beggars there are here. Seemingly more than anywhere else including london.

Had a bit of a read online to see if there was any particular reason and the one that seems to crop up again and again is lack of affordable housing in the city with the council only wanting to build luxury/high end apartments and regeneration programs. (Council is all Labour except for 2 lib dems)

With the blame being laid on them for nott making central affordable housing but trying to push it further out.



But when you look at the group's if these people they aren't people who've fallen on temporary hard times and with a biy of help could hold down a central job and a flat they're almost all alcoholics or drug addicts who can barely talk/slur out "gimme some change".

So I just don't see how even if you levelled everything and filled the city with cheap flats how it would help.

These people will only be in a residence if its paid for and the only reason it needs to be central is that it's close to where they beg.

Obviously there's no easy solution but it seems a bit disingenuous for people to be beating the council for approving higher end residences in the city and pointing to the homless proiblem as the reason as they aren't going to be affected either way.
 
There clearly is an issue across the country with housing costs being out of control. There is no denying that and it may be a contributing factor to why homeless people become homeless in the first place.

But it's certainly not the whole picture and I agree that many homeless would need far more help than just cheaper accomodation.

It's really important to look at the causes and not simply blaming house prices, otherwise we will never tack the real causem
 
I know that Surrey can be rather expensive. So when my dad told me about the ‘affordable’ homes being built near him. I asked if he could have a look at the prices, thinking I could afford something in the 250,000 range, maybe push a touch more.

The smallest pokey, 3 bedroom homes in the plot were 575,000. This is an ‘affordable homes development which the council granted on the proviso that affordable homes were built. It is quite frankly disgusting. I’d rather buy abroad than live here to be honest.

It makes me wonder what the councils do to help the homeless because if I didn’t stay with my parents I’d be one of them!!
 
A lot of them beyond repair/help imo. Once drink and drugs get ahold of them they will lose their minds for good. Only capable of doing very basic manual jobs. It's a nasty world when you get to that state. Maybe build some kind of hostel away from the city center and try and find decent people to run it.
 
There’s obviously a complex mix of factors which contribute to homelessness. One of them will often be housing costs... in particular the up front costs involved when starting a tenancy.


But why does this affordable housing need to be city center stock?

These aren't the types who are particularly In need of central housing.

Most of the complaints seem to be thst councils are trying to push the affordable housing our from the center of cities
 
Is it not all about presenting the city center as being a desirable place for tourists. Don't want the undesirables giving a bad impression.
 
People need to look up what 'affordable housing' actually is. It's just to con the public into believing that house house builders are actually helping with the lack of affordable homes.
 
There was a good programme on channel 4 last night called something like Who is getting rich off the housing crisis, and it was mostly about housing associations price gouging and demolishing genuinely affordable and social housing and replacing it with expensive new developments.
 
Well not exactly true. But maybe that's the council aim in the next 10 years or so. Have to do something to keep the coin rolling in. I'm probably wrong.


I think theyr e building something like 18,000 new apartments atm the whole city is covered in New high rise developments, but nearly all of them are for sale as investment only and rent.

I just don't understand why manchester has so many homless they go around in groups of 10 plus.

Don't seem to see it on this scale elsewhere.
 
Well, a tenant could be city centre and then prices could rise forcing them to move out... at which point the need for a second deposit and another lot of agency fees could lead to homelessness (although I think England will soon be following Scotland in getting rid of the fees... haven’t looked in a while/have been in Scotland for the last year).

Plus the effect of breaking up communities/support networks/etc.


Possibly but these people don't seem to have worked in decades. That or drugs destroy people very rapidly :(

I wonder if maybe removing them from the city center to some rehab facilities outside of big towns where access to drugs is going to be harder for them would be a way to get them back on track (at least at the start for people like you mention who are recently homeless) but I think any such plan would be killed by NIMBYs which leaves that stuff in cities where scumbag dealers will be preying on any one trying to recover.


People selling drugs to the vulnerable like these, need to be punished far more severely than brad selling to the usual weekend party goers.
 
I think theyr e building something like 18,000 new apartments atm the whole city is covered in New high rise developments, but nearly all of them are for sale as investment only and rent.

I just don't understand why manchester has so many homless they go around in groups of 10 plus.

Don't seem to see it on this scale elsewhere.

There's probably a good reason for it. How about the fruition of the 90's drug scene. Probably a lot of sexual abuse victims also. Also this mollycoddled health and safety society which can snuff out creativism and individualism.
 


The Guardian has calculated that just a fraction of Fairburn’s bonus could build enough homes to end homelessness in York. A donation of £4.6m – just 4% of Fairburn’s bonus – could provide a home for all of the 58 homeless families in the city.


Theres only 58 homless in the city of York!?

Or do all the singled not count as "homless" for the figure only families
 
But why does this affordable housing need to be city center stock?

These aren't the types who are particularly In need of central housing.

Most of the complaints seem to be thst councils are trying to push the affordable housing our from the center of cities

And this is the crux. Where my parents live is a very affluent area. Within the middle of this there is what used to be the village green. The council have just granted planning permission for affordable housing on it despite overwhelming resistance from all involved. Their justification is literally 'poor people deserve to live somewhere nice too'.
 
And this is the crux. Where my parents live is a very affluent area. Within the middle of this there is what used to be the village green. The council have just granted planning permission for affordable housing on it despite overwhelming resistance from all involved. Their justification is literally 'poor people deserve to live somewhere nice too'.

Affordable housing doesn't mean a load of people of benefits. Usually it's working people who need to use an housing association to buy a home in the area they live.
 
Most of the homeless problem can be traced back to the lack of social housing initiatives and mental health spending.

Putting people into expensive private rental housing is a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.

E: I suspect those on barely affordable rent/mortgages are in for a rough ride when the B bomb is triggered, expect many, many more homeless.
 
Back
Top Bottom