House for a £1 anyone?

[Clubpaver]

I thought the idea of these sort of schemes was to try to help get the housing market moving again.

Having struggled through 15% interest rates,it does feel like a bit of a kick in the bollocks knowing that people who have rented council houses are being handed it on a plate,however,as I`ve always said,we have lived where we have chosen to live for 23 years.We haven`t had to live next door to some low life scumbag because the council put them there,so there is some gain from the pain.

 

[James06]

Villan Of The North - 1/5/2013 12:51

James06 - 1/5/2013 13:36

VotN, dont you live in Norway?

Hence the fact that I said that it was your tax subsidising them, not mine. I'm from Solihull and lived there for most of my life and visit family there regularly. Where I live is not really relevant to the principle, surely.

You said 'I had to pay considerably more for my house.'

I'm not sure the house prices in Norway are relevant to Staffordshire county council offering cheap housing?

No offence like. :35:

 

[Villan Of The North]

James06 - 1/5/2013 14:33

Villan Of The North - 1/5/2013 12:51

James06 - 1/5/2013 13:36

VotN, dont you live in Norway?

Hence the fact that I said that it was your tax subsidising them, not mine. I'm from Solihull and lived there for most of my life and visit family there regularly. Where I live is not really relevant to the principle, surely.

You said 'I had to pay considerably more for my house.'

I'm not sure the house prices in Norway are relevant to Staffordshire county council offering cheap housing?

No offence like. :35:

It's not about the amount I paid but the fact that I paid market price, £1 wouldn't even buy you the property if it was condemned in order to demolish it for the site. Had I bought a house in Stoke-on-Trent I'd have paid the market rate there too, considerably more than £1, so the principle is surely he same. I know for a fact that you paid a heck of a lot more for your house, well now you are paying for someone else to buy a house too :14:

 

[Guest]

Villan Of The North - 1/5/2013 08:54

I had to pay considerably more for my house, why should the local authority subsidise people in this way purely because they don't have an income to maintain a regular mortgage? There is nothing wrong with renting, I rented for years before I was in a financial position to buy. If people are handed things on a plate this way they will feel no real responsibility or ownership and as such will end up typical of the type of "Woodies" we see in Northern Solihull.

Plus remember, it's your taxes that are subsidising this scheme rather than their income keeping the cashflow going that is so essential to help an economy recover.

The houses belong to the state, they could invest in doing them up and then housing more jobless/homeless/single mothers etc However it would just cost the taxpayer more. Lets say for arguments sake that the state have made the money from these houses in the past and they are now surplus to requirements and any further investment would be deemed a loss. The criteria to own one for a £1 is for maybe this scheme to improve the area itself.. As well as offer hope to a young local working family?

 

[Villan Of The North]

Green Tea - 1/5/2013 22:12

Villan Of The North - 1/5/2013 08:54

I had to pay considerably more for my house, why should the local authority subsidise people in this way purely because they don't have an income to maintain a regular mortgage? There is nothing wrong with renting, I rented for years before I was in a financial position to buy. If people are handed things on a plate this way they will feel no real responsibility or ownership and as such will end up typical of the type of "Woodies" we see in Northern Solihull.

Plus remember, it's your taxes that are subsidising this scheme rather than their income keeping the cashflow going that is so essential to help an economy recover.

The houses belong to the state, they could invest in doing them up and then housing more jobless/homeless/single mothers etc However it would just cost the taxpayer more. Lets say for arguments sake that the state have made the money from these houses in the past and they are now surplus to requirements and any further investment would be deemed a loss. The criteria to own one for a £1 is for maybe this scheme to improve the area itself.. As well as offer hope to a young local working family?

I think it's an unfortunate given that the state will be paying to house "jobless/homeless/single mothers etc" in some way or another. It should be cheaper to have state owned housing than to pay a private landlord both the cost of his mortgage and his profit, as is the case with none municipal housing. If it's not cheaper it's not because of real costs but because of bureaucratic matters making things unnecessarily expensive.......bureaucracy can always be stripped away.

 

[Guest]

The problem we have with putting jobless and co' in these houses is that they soon become run down estates. Whereas filling the houses with working families, it tends to breed a better estate all round. Its also cheaper for the government when young single mothers stay with their parents longer(who can help raise the child and give the mother support, freedom to work and get on etc), as well as young jobless singles that try to rush into state housing, along with housing benefit, social welfare etc, they end up becoming trapped in a no win situation. Obviously not all cases are better off staying longer with their parents but many cases are.

 

[Villan Of The North]

Green Tea - 2/5/2013 14:58

The problem we have with putting jobless and co' in these houses is that they soon become run down estates. Whereas filling the houses with working families, it tends to breed a better estate all round. Its also cheaper for the government when young single mothers stay with their parents longer(who can help raise the child and give the mother support, freedom to work and get on etc), as well as young jobless singles that try to rush into state housing, along with housing benefit, social welfare etc, they end up becoming trapped in a no win situation. Obviously not all cases are better off staying longer with their parents but many cases are.

You make some valid points but you are now changing the perammeters of the debate by making it a question of social politics, and how to handle teenage pregnancies rather than a morale question of subsidising someone buying a house.

If it is morally acceptable to subsidise house ownership in this way why are so many people forced out of their homes when they lose their jobs? As it stands the SS office will pay almost any amount of rent but will not help out with mortgage payments even though it would often be cheaper and arguably better for society, avoiding all the costs, both financial and social, that forced sale/repossession incurs. They don't do this as it has never been considered acceptable for the government to subsidise house ownership.

Although I do concede that most council houses sold in the '80s were sold below market value, they did still command a reasonable price and were only sold to existing tenant who had been there for a number of years, they had already paid a large portion of the value of the property in rent to the municipal authority.