Should minions be the instrument of rich people?
- Thread starter tenofspades
- Start date
Sounds a bit harsh at first glance, but the young mother, (according to the link), says that the property was not advertised as for family occupancy, presumably that meant that the young couple were aware that the landlord might want to let it to a single person, so in effect, in getting pregnant by accident or design they made themselves homeless.
Personally I can’t see what difference it makes how many people live there, providing it’s not illegally overcrowded, as long as the rent’s paid, so what?
Perhaps it’s a generational thing, I got married for the first time in 1961, I knew that my wife wanted a family eventually, as did I, but we also knew that having a baby in our first rented apartment was not a good idea.
Therefore we delayed things for a couple of years, until the Council gave us a flat.
I can’t possibly comment on the Cornish couple’s situation in that respect, so I won’t.
You won't be a priority for a council flat now if you don't have kids.
Average age of a first time homebuyer now is about 33 so while waiting until then to have kids is possible, its not for everyone.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2021
- Posts
- 216
yeah in theory she should be able to stay in the houseshare, but then you got to consider the other tenants too. Crying baby etc.
I think housing was built to accomodate the local population and local workers first and foremost. So these people with second homes should be at least required to rent them out. As to buying a home, maybe that is more where the market dictates.
I think housing was built to accomodate the local population and local workers first and foremost. So these people with second homes should be at least required to rent them out. As to buying a home, maybe that is more where the market dictates.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2021
- Posts
- 216
Sometimes younger parents are better. Shouldn't have to navigate a labyrinth just to be able to have them.
Todays headline on cornwall live
Drop in number of second homes in Cornwall as owners flip properties to holiday lets
Dosnt suprise me, some charging 5k plus a week here in Polzeath (just been surfing)
Drop in number of second homes in Cornwall as owners flip properties to holiday lets
Dosnt suprise me, some charging 5k plus a week here in Polzeath (just been surfing)
Cornwall is an interesting example to choose, because the lack of available accomodation is not due to a lack of space, but a desire to maintain things as they currently are and limit population growth from a planning perspective.
Contrast that with London (I would love to live in Mayfair for example, but will never be able to afford it), where the is literally no space to increase property (without reducing property size or building upwards) and the approaches take a very different tack.
No, they shouldn't, we should be building more homes in Cornwall, you just have to convince the Cornish not to oppose the idea. Of course, there is also the argument that if more people did, then wages would rise as labour demand outstripped supply.
So are you going to manage allocation when circumstances change (eg if someone with greater need is without accomodation, do you remove the family currently in it)? The current council and social housing processes already fail significantly and aren't fit for purpose now, let alone fit for expansion.
Remember, you have said this will be a right to accomodation. That means anyone is entitled to request it, and you have no pricing flexibility to manage it.
Any form of location specificity is desire driven demand, especially if not directly employment related. Anyone who makes a choice to expand their family and outgrow their existing accomodation is desire driven, and so on.
It is if you're going to give everyone a right to below market rate accomodation, the number of people in subsidised accomodation is going to go up, not down.
This is rather a complicated one, and probably not a good one to use as an example of the problems.
Agree about the Council flats 100%, but as I said, I got married for the first time sixty years ago, completely different ballgame.
Don’t know what the average age for first time homebuyers was in 1971, but I bought my first house then, at 32, I was divorced by my first wife in 1970 but didn’t remarry until 1994.
I have no idea where you got that from, but it's 100% wrong. Not a good start.
Just as an example, Truro is adding close to 4,000 new houses in a development near Threemilestone. That's a new town the size of Padstow.
And everywhere in Cornwall there are large and small housing developments going up. Just drive around and you can't fail to see entire new estates going up. Camborne, St Austell ... everywhere.
I have no problem with the council significantly expanding its property holdings to the point where they can allow people to stay in their houses, or have long-term guaranteed tenancy. 10 years or so as per other countries.
Obviously if your circumstances improve significantly then the chances are you would want to own your own home. You would likely move out of your own accord, to become a home owner.
Remember, the way this is currently done is to allow people to buy their council properties at a ridiculously discount rate (like 30% of the true value). This is bonkers. Without that, people would either continue to rent or, should they be able to afford a mortgage on a mid-range property, move out to become a home owner.
The idea that if you suddenly become ineligible by £1 (over the threshold) that you would be forced out is not what I had in mind. Indeed, long-term assured tenancies are the kind of thing I envisage the council being able to provide.
And to accomplish this councils should be encouraged to go on massive building sprees - but not the lowest-quality pap the private developers churn out to maximise profits and return to shareholders. Instead, invest some real money and build to last. Build green. Build sympathetically to the landscape.
The private sector cares about nothing but profits and often the new housing estates they produce are complete abominations. I would not allow that, either. We would be looking at substantial spending with a view to the long-term health of the country and its people. Looking to ensure we don't end up in a race to the bottom, as per the private sector. And there wouldn't be unsafe cladding either, designed to keep costs down at the cost of human lives.
Based on means testing. The right to fair rent based on means testing.
If that is below market rate it is because the market rate is no longer fair. Paying 70% of your income or more on rent is not fair, or good for the long-term health of society.
Remember, the private sector is often focused on short term gains, and is amoral, bordering on immoral (see unsafe cladding, etc). That is to the detriment of society, or can be.
Hence me saying ghost tenants.
Sometimes things just need to get done if you constantly looking for reasons to not do something then nothing will get done.
The starting point is to restrict future transactions, then move on from there if its still deemed a problem years later.
One thing I have wondered about is why stamp duty is waived for certain company transactions, seems a law exception made for intentional abuse.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-corporate-bodies
If anything a rental business should be paying a higher stamp fee than consumers, as its a clear "for profit", the obvious reason it doesnt is it would very likely be passed on to tenants, the exclusion could be made to require a resident living there that pays council tax, if this isnt fulfilled within 12 months the stamp duty is paid as normal. For any 12 month period after where it least 6 months are void, then the stamp duty is paid.
Last edited:
Proof things have changed for the worse, now days you need to get pregnant to improve your chances. If you have no kind of priority at all you will have a very hard time, in some cities you cant even register for housing unless you fulfil priority conditions.
It's not so much looking for reasons not to do something but asking for specifics re: how you define something, how you'd implement something etc... what is the goal, how will it help that goal etc..
Some "empty" buildings might be literal unfurnished shells, others might actually be used for x days per year. Does a landlord get penalised simply because they happen to have not found a tennant? Do the rules apply only to properties over a certain value etc.
If you cant find a tenant in 2021 then you doing something very wrong, the supply and demand balance is extremely skewed, So should a LL be punished for asking for so much money or having such an unkempt property he cant find a tenant, no issue with that yes. Obviously though my proposals are not about ironing out fine details, its just a shell of an idea. The problem with constantly looking for flaws in ideas it does have the affect of things not getting done, I could imagine a meeting of policy makers, where there is someone in the room pinpointing issues and then the end result is no new policy gets made. If a property was unlet for a long period of time because of say renovation work, then that would be a reasonable exemption within reason. So bear in mind any ideas I have posted here, they are just shell of ideas, there would obviously be adjustments made to account for edge cases or unexpected side effects.
You are welcome to post ideas of your own.
That doesn’t really answer anything - the point is that when you make board changes like these you can easily end up with unintended side effects, you should really have a clear goal, what you intend to do might affect others etc.. too.
If you can’t answer how you even define unoccupied/what gets included then it’s a bit of a non-starter. Not just renovations that could be an issue but holiday homes, developers trying to sell properties etc..
It’s not clear that this is a big issue that needs to be solved in the first place. IIRC number of homes in London vacant for >6 months has basically halved vs just over a decade ago. Councils can act if houses are left to rot. It’s a tiny portion of homes overall. Like 20k or 30k out of millions and in plenty of cases there might well be good reasons for it.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2014
- Posts
- 402
If the government do not allow people to have 2nd homes, then nothing it could stop the gov to go one step further.
next step don't allow big homes
next step don't allow luxury homes
next step don't allow home larger than 150 m²
next step don't allow more than 25m² per person
next step don't allow to own a home at all
next step...
and people will end up living in concentration camps with no personal space.
Give an inch and they will take a mile.
next step don't allow big homes
next step don't allow luxury homes
next step don't allow home larger than 150 m²
next step don't allow more than 25m² per person
next step don't allow to own a home at all
next step...
and people will end up living in concentration camps with no personal space.
Give an inch and they will take a mile.
That's quite the slippery slope you've found yourself on there.
That sounds quite insane and doesn't add anything useful to any discussion.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
I think he took my post one step further.
In sought after areas. Remove the landlords and investors and homes are still to expensive. Who do you go after next? Then after they are removed who do you go after then?
There will always be homes in sought after areas that are out of reach for people.
I would love to live in this fantasy land where I can buy a house in the absolute most sought after areas for 50p but it's not going to happen and any proposal to do so won't work.
Earn more or move elsewhere. It's as simple as that. If your job there can't pay for a house locally then move. If there are no jobs in your field elsewhere then find a different job that uses the same or similar skill sets.
The idea that the government should pander to the poor folk who weren't smart enough to get their act together and want to live in highly desirable areas is hilarious. Free homes for all. What right does you being born and brought up in an area entitle you to live there forever even if you cannot afford to do so?
People literally emigrate from one side of the planet to the other and make it work. Yet these people cannot move 20 miles away.
This is only going to get worse not better so you better catch on to that fact and put a plan in place that's actually workable and achievable?
In sought after areas. Remove the landlords and investors and homes are still to expensive. Who do you go after next? Then after they are removed who do you go after then?
There will always be homes in sought after areas that are out of reach for people.
I would love to live in this fantasy land where I can buy a house in the absolute most sought after areas for 50p but it's not going to happen and any proposal to do so won't work.
Earn more or move elsewhere. It's as simple as that. If your job there can't pay for a house locally then move. If there are no jobs in your field elsewhere then find a different job that uses the same or similar skill sets.
The idea that the government should pander to the poor folk who weren't smart enough to get their act together and want to live in highly desirable areas is hilarious. Free homes for all. What right does you being born and brought up in an area entitle you to live there forever even if you cannot afford to do so?
People literally emigrate from one side of the planet to the other and make it work. Yet these people cannot move 20 miles away.
This is only going to get worse not better so you better catch on to that fact and put a plan in place that's actually workable and achievable?
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2014
- Posts
- 402
indeed it is insane, this is what governments with lots of power tend to do.