hibs.net Messageboard

 

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 241 to 267 of 267
  1. #241
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by heretoday View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Welcome to Edinburgh, City of Potholes and Building Sites.
    Soon every citizen will be issued a hard hat.
    Potholes, absolutely there are millions of them just now.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #242
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That'll be the same centuries old principle that has put over a third of the land in England in the hands of the descendants of aristocrats and has made Scotland one of the most inequitable places in the Western world when it comes to land ownership. Something I'm not particularly proud of.
    This liberal, unregulated attitude to residential property ownership has taken away what I would consider the rights of many people. It's got to the stage where an ever increasing amount of people have two choices now when fleeing the nest...they either pay rent to a landlord for a place they will never own or give up and wait for their parents to die and accept this almost feudal system.

    If you're in the "let's do something camp" but consider compulsory purchase orders for empty foreign investments illiberal then I'd like to know what you suggest. Freeing up land and letting the private sector build more houses at their own discretion will do absolutely nothing without controls on who buys them. What's to simply stop more foreign property speculators (who contribute zilch to our society and do it to line their own pockets) buying them and keeping prices at an unaffordable level? Having decent options for people when it comes to buying or renting a house should be as much of a right as it presently is for people to hoard properties and get rich at other people's expense...even more of a right I'd say and it's a totally realistic target.

    What it needs is (brace yourself ) a lot of state intervention. There's absolutely no reason why the state can't build hundreds of thousands of social houses and rent them out at well below "market" rate. Even that would cover the cost of building, maintenance and the compulsory purchase of land for a project that will go a long way to putting a roof over everyone's head. As for rent controls or controlling rents, the problems mainly seem to revolve around the private landlords and their affairs, which I'm afraid to say is down the list when it comes to sympathy as far as I'm concerned. The vast, vast majority of them can simply sell up if they're not happy with the money they are making.

    The cry of "unaffordable" is often heard when it comes to housing and indeed nationalisation (which is scaremonger central at the moment, how much will the railways cost?) but I'd rather we took on a collective debt and did the right thing than stick with the neoliberal way things are.It's about the long game and we'll all benefit in the long run...less pressure, less transient communities, less private individual debt and hopefully less mental health issues. Without sounding like a party political broadcast, some avenues aren't about infringing on people's rights, they are about allocating and managing resources fairly for the benefit of everyone in society, not just the wealthy, the lucky or the ruthless.
    I dont agrer with everything you say, but you make your case well and there are some pointd i do agree with.

    Our inequity irks me too, and i do find it stirs my inner blood a little the vast tracts of my country that are owned by rich foreigners - but maybe thats getting into slightly dodgy ground.

    I dont understand why renting a council house would be any better than prjvate renting - you talk about no prospect of ownership, would that also apply to these council houses, ie right to buy?

    Couldnt the same effect achieved through rent controls?

    The problem of takig on more debt is that we already habe an enormous debt - i recently got my tax summary for The year and debt repayments were i think the 4th top item for where my tax is going - it is not a solution to simply say lets add more on top of that.

    Therr are a raft of other problems... hifh density housing is undesirable and discredited, who will build the homes, where will we put them, etc

    Like most issues, i think the problem is far more difficult to solve than people realise.

    Given that, maybe radical action is required - im just not sure what is practical?

  4. #243
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ind...681.html%3famp

    Interesting happenings in New Zealand in recent days.
    PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

  5. #244
    Testimonial Due Geo_1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In my Joy Division Oven Gloves
    Posts
    4,078
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I dont agrer with everything you say, but you make your case well and there are some pointd i do agree with.

    Our inequity irks me too, and i do find it stirs my inner blood a little the vast tracts of my country that are owned by rich foreigners - but maybe thats getting into slightly dodgy ground.

    I dont understand why renting a council house would be any better than prjvate renting - you talk about no prospect of ownership, would that also apply to these council houses, ie right to buy?

    Couldnt the same effect achieved through rent controls?

    The problem of takig on more debt is that we already habe an enormous debt - i recently got my tax summary for The year and debt repayments were i think the 4th top item for where my tax is going - it is not a solution to simply say lets add more on top of that.

    Therr are a raft of other problems... hifh density housing is undesirable and discredited, who will build the homes, where will we put them, etc

    Like most issues, i think the problem is far more difficult to solve than people realise.

    Given that, maybe radical action is required - im just not sure what is practical?
    National debt has risen astronomically since the Tories came back into office. That is without an equivalent investment in public services and social housing. Where has the money gone? Similar to US under Trump they throw cash at the rich and hope we get the benefit of their noblesse oblige. That's never going to happen.

  6. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I dont agrer with everything you say, but you make your case well and there are some pointd i do agree with.

    Our inequity irks me too, and i do find it stirs my inner blood a little the vast tracts of my country that are owned by rich foreigners - but maybe thats getting into slightly dodgy ground.

    I dont understand why renting a council house would be any better than prjvate renting - you talk about no prospect of ownership, would that also apply to these council houses, ie right to buy?

    Couldnt the same effect achieved through rent controls?

    The problem of takig on more debt is that we already habe an enormous debt - i recently got my tax summary for The year and debt repayments were i think the 4th top item for where my tax is going - it is not a solution to simply say lets add more on top of that.

    Therr are a raft of other problems... hifh density housing is undesirable and discredited, who will build the homes, where will we put them, etc

    Like most issues, i think the problem is far more difficult to solve than people realise.

    Given that, maybe radical action is required - im just not sure what is practical?

    I dont think as a society we should be afraid to have real debate, but in many cases people with concerns are too afraid to voice them through fear of being closed minded. The irony of that seems to be lost a few with loud voice though.

    There are many countries around the world who prioritise the needs of their own citizens. For example in Thailand, you need a Thai business partner if you want to a business up so as too avoid foreigners monopolising business there. Im sure it is far from foolproof but there are attempts at looking after their own folk first.

  7. #246
    Coaching Staff jacomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    exile
    Posts
    13,482
    Quote Originally Posted by RyeSloan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Glad I didnít disappoint

    Donít get me wrong Iím well in the Ďletís do somethingí camp but forced appropriation of peopleís property simply because it is empty is a ridiculous proposal that threatens the fundamental of property (in the wider sense) rights in the UK, a right that has under pinned our economy for centuries.

    Rent controls have also often proven to be counter productive and gawd knows why we want to transfer even more risk onto the public books by becoming mortgage lenders as well.

    Then there is the small assumption that somehow the public sector can build houses of superior quality at substantially increased rate but at reduced cost and then rent them at half bat...then properly maintain them forever more.

    The whole concept just sounds bonkers to me.

    Finally removing property rights seems a common thread with Labour policies recently considering they have proposed letting parliament decide how much each of the industries that they wish to renationalise will be worth (letís not let the pesky market decide such things). Pity the millions of pensioners and their pension funds that will get robbed blind by that approach. An approach of course that will Ďcost nothingí.

    As I said total bonkers.

    The property market is broken. Both Tories and Labour are culpable but following a right wing, free market dogma.

    Oh, and the public sector can build good quality affordable homes. Council homes = brutalist high rise to most people, but on fact there are many Council-built properties that are in high demand today, because they are spacious and well built.

    The cost of land is the biggest issue. And there is a long and inglorious history of people grabbing public land for private profit.

  8. #247
    Coaching Staff HUTCHYHIBBY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    EDINBURGH
    Age
    47
    Posts
    14,823
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Potholes, absolutely there are millions of them just now.
    I wonder why the 20mph limit was introduced? ;-)

  9. #248
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo_1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    National debt has risen astronomically since the Tories came back into office. That is without an equivalent investment in public services and social housing. Where has the money gone? Similar to US under Trump they throw cash at the rich and hope we get the benefit of their noblesse oblige. That's never going to happen.
    Of course it has, they inherited an enormous deficit.

    But anyway, thats kind of not the point. How we got the debt is irrelevant, the fact is it exists and is costing a helluva lot of cash to service it.

  10. #249
    Coaching Staff jacomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    exile
    Posts
    13,482
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of course it has, they inherited an enormous deficit.

    But anyway, thats kind of not the point. How we got the debt is irrelevant, the fact is it exists and is costing a helluva lot of cash to service it.

    They inherited a big debt and turned into a massive one.

    This is despite Ďreducing the deficití being their stated no.1 priority. George Osbourne kept having to revise his targets because he missed every single one - and they are still missing them.

    Whatever your politics, austerity is a failed policy, because it failed completely in its stated objective.

  11. #250
    Testimonial Due Geo_1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In my Joy Division Oven Gloves
    Posts
    4,078
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of course it has, they inherited an enormous deficit.

    But anyway, thats kind of not the point. How we got the debt is irrelevant, the fact is it exists and is costing a helluva lot of cash to service it.
    Yes they inherited an enormous deficit, borrowed more and made it bigger. Without any visible improvement in public services we have to assume that someone got rich out of it. It wasn't me or anybody I know.

    How we got the debt and where the money went is very relevant. It isn't going to get easier to service the debt after Brexit either.

  12. #251
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo_1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes they inherited an enormous deficit, borrowed more and made it bigger. Without any visible improvement in public services we have to assume that someone got rich out of it. It wasn't me or anybody I know.

    How we got the debt and where the money went is very relevant. It isn't going to get easier to service the debt after Brexit either.
    So are you saying austerity wasnt tough enough, and the spending cuts should have been far more severe? Because thats the only way the debt could have been reduced.

    They borrowed more because of the deficit, thats what a deficit means!

  13. #252
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by jacomo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They inherited a big debt and turned into a massive one.

    This is despite Ďreducing the deficití being their stated no.1 priority. George Osbourne kept having to revise his targets because he missed every single one - and they are still missing them.

    Whatever your politics, austerity is a failed policy, because it failed completely in its stated objective.
    You do know that the deficit has reduced quite significantly dont you, although admittedly it hasnt been eradictaed.

    Always makes me laugh people railing against austerity, then slating the tories for making the debt bigger and not reducing the deficit quickly enough.

  14. #253
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,666
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You do know that the deficit has reduced quite significantly dont you, although admittedly it hasnt been eradictaed.

    Always makes me laugh people railing against austerity, then slating the tories for making the debt bigger and not reducing the deficit quickly enough.
    And confusingly these are often the same people that tend to support huge additional public borrowing to renationalise swathes of industry (and the post office of course...still donít understand why that always pops up), build infrastructure, build houses, increase pensions, Ďinvestí more in the NHS and anything else that pops up.

    Strange but true.

  15. #254
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That'll be the same centuries old principle that has put over a third of the land in England in the hands of the descendants of aristocrats and has made Scotland one of the most inequitable places in the Western world when it comes to land ownership. Something I'm not particularly proud of.
    This liberal, unregulated attitude to residential property ownership has taken away what I would consider the rights of many people. It's got to the stage where an ever increasing amount of people have two choices now when fleeing the nest...they either pay rent to a landlord for a place they will never own or give up and wait for their parents to die and accept this almost feudal system.

    If you're in the "let's do something camp" but consider compulsory purchase orders for empty foreign investments illiberal then I'd like to know what you suggest. Freeing up land and letting the private sector build more houses at their own discretion will do absolutely nothing without controls on who buys them. What's to simply stop more foreign property speculators (who contribute zilch to our society and do it to line their own pockets) buying them and keeping prices at an unaffordable level? Having decent options for people when it comes to buying or renting a house should be as much of a right as it presently is for people to hoard properties and get rich at other people's expense...even more of a right I'd say and it's a totally realistic target.

    What it needs is (brace yourself ) a lot of state intervention. There's absolutely no reason why the state can't build hundreds of thousands of social houses and rent them out at well below "market" rate. Even that would cover the cost of building, maintenance and the compulsory purchase of land for a project that will go a long way to putting a roof over everyone's head. As for rent controls or controlling rents, the problems mainly seem to revolve around the private landlords and their affairs, which I'm afraid to say is down the list when it comes to sympathy as far as I'm concerned. The vast, vast majority of them can simply sell up if they're not happy with the money they are making.

    The cry of "unaffordable" is often heard when it comes to housing and indeed nationalisation (which is scaremonger central at the moment, how much will the railways cost?) but I'd rather we took on a collective debt and did the right thing than stick with the neoliberal way things are.It's about the long game and we'll all benefit in the long run...less pressure, less transient communities, less private individual debt and hopefully less mental health issues. Without sounding like a party political broadcast, some avenues aren't about infringing on people's rights, they are about allocating and managing resources fairly for the benefit of everyone in society, not just the wealthy, the lucky or the ruthless.
    Thanks for the reply.

    We could chew the fat on this for many more posts Iím sure.

    I think from my perspective itís a simple belief that itís fundamentally impossible for the state to be able to decide who gets what house, when and at what price and that all to be considered Ďfairí and Ďaffordableí

    Then there is the massive question of how you would actually deliver your huge building programme logistically.

    Then there is the lessons of the past. Councils were terrible landlords and huge swathes of their property portfolios suffered from poor build quality but most importantly poor maintenance. The concept of building a massive amount of cheap housing rented out at way below market rates simply shows me that the same would happen. Poor build quality followed by councils cutting maintenance budgets to a minimum in their already squeezed finances...leading to the inevitable result that saw large areas of council housing demolished or passed across to housing associations previously.

    Anyhoo as I said we could go back and forward for a long time but I think we would just find out that we were still approaching this issue from different directions

    As for what I would do...well believe it or not I think a lot has actually already been done:

    New affordability tests on mortgages (the whole house price inflation started when the basic 3x max on one earner was lifted)

    Buy to Let tax break removals and additional stamp duty. This has led to a huge decrease in BTL mortgage applications and has made small time / part time landlords a significantly less profitable space to be in.

    Stronger and longer tenancy rights (particularly in Scotland)

    Additionally I think we just need to look at why housing is expensive. Up to 75% of the cost of a new build is the land cost. You want to make housing cheaper then make the land cheaper. Why is the land so expensive...largely because of restrictive planning laws and regulations imposed by government and councils!

    Finally I would go one step further and be hated by everyone. I would abolish the capital gains tax exemption on peopleís primary residence thus taxing some of he massive unearned gains people have made. While on the flip side I would also abolish stamp duty or at the very least return it to the 0.5%.

  16. #255
    Coaching Staff One Day Soon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In hope
    Age
    53
    Posts
    7,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That doesnít mean the map is wrong. They probably use averages.

    Anyway, Owen Jones is bang on again.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...home-ownership

    Edit: I could live until Iím 100 and Iíll never figure out how to post links properly :-(

    It's vaguely impressive that Owen Jones has perfected the art of writing with all the style and substance of an earnest, half informed 5th year pupil. Never fails to be both half-baked and loaded with glib assertion. He's perfect for the Guardian and Corbynistas really.

  17. #256
    @hibs.net private member johnbc70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,817
    I notice those saying the article was bang on have in the main failed to deliver any substance as to how it would work and how it would be paid for.

    Rent control is not new, so is there evidence to suggests it works? The Labour policy team must have done their research and have the detail of their policy, surely it has some substance behind it?

  18. #257
    @hibs.net private member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North stand
    Posts
    16,356
    Quote Originally Posted by One Day Soon View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's vaguely impressive that Owen Jones has perfected the art of writing with all the style and substance of an earnest, half informed 5th year pupil. Never fails to be both half-baked and loaded with glib assertion. He's perfect for the Guardian and Corbynistas really.
    He is only in his twenties. Itís important to remember that great movements and ideas have come from those with youthful exuberance...and their style of delivery sometimes makes their ideas sound more radical than they actually are (especially to those who are more, ahem, senior or consertvative with a small c).

    The world needs more Owen Joneses.

  19. #258
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He is only in his twenties. Itís important to remember that great movements and ideas have come from those with youthful exuberance...and their style of delivery sometimes makes their ideas sound more radical than they actually are (especially to those who are more, ahem, senior or consertvative with a small c).

    The world needs more Owen Joneses.
    My problen with him, and with a lot of the resurgent left is exactly that they dont appear to be offering any new solutions. In fact their progressive views seem to be about trying to recreate a failed model from 40-50yrs ago.

    I would be quite open to new ideas about how we make our country work better, our econony work better fo us etc, but all i see from corbyn et al are regurgitating holy cows from the past.

    For example, i think the universal badic income is an idea worthy of exploration (i know its not a new idea per se, but it has never been tried) - instead of trying to recreate nationalised railways that didnt work all that well in the first place.

    Bring no new ideas. But lets not turn society back 40 years.

  20. #259
    @hibs.net private member IWasThere2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bolton
    Age
    50
    Posts
    34,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatecrasher View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    In regards Edinburgh, definitely. As an out of towner Edinburgh used to be a bit of an adventure where the city centre in particular was quite a nice place to be. I no longer see that as the case, the shopping is rubbish, its packed with tourists, the prices tend to be on the higher end of the scale (even for something as simple as a pint of Tennants). As you head towards the outer areas it becomes dirty, smelly and generally not very nice. M mum went into the city to get some Christmas presents and usually makes a day of it even she was complaining about what its like now and shes not even close to being as cynical as me. I told her to try Glasgow for a change as that still has some of the 'charm' about it.
    Have to agree. She's not what she was

    Don't agree re Glasgow - cannot stand the place!

  21. #260
    @hibs.net private member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North stand
    Posts
    16,356
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    My problen with him, and with a lot of the resurgent left is exactly that they dont appear to be offering any new solutions. In fact their progressive views seem to be about trying to recreate a failed model from 40-50yrs ago.

    I would be quite open to new ideas about how we make our country work better, our econony work better fo us etc, but all i see from corbyn et al are regurgitating holy cows from the past.

    For example, i think the universal badic income is an idea worthy of exploration (i know its not a new idea per se, but it has never been tried) - instead of trying to recreate nationalised railways that didnt work all that well in the first place.

    Bring no new ideas. But lets not turn society back 40 years.
    Iím sorry but itís not about turning the clock back to a ďfailedĒ system.

    A lot of the things that people want reinstated didnít implode or werenít failing...they were sold of or ripped apart on ideological grounds.

    Iíd like to think our future involves a hybrid of solutions, where we learn from the mistakes of the past and jettison the bad way of doing things.
    Iím willing to bet that history will judge the last 30 years, where weíve sleepwalked into a world where neoliberism and ruthless capitalism has become the norm, more harshly than what went before it and our system will reflect that.

  22. #261
    @hibs.net private member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North stand
    Posts
    16,356
    Quote Originally Posted by RyeSloan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thanks for the reply.

    We could chew the fat on this for many more posts Iím sure.

    I think from my perspective itís a simple belief that itís fundamentally impossible for the state to be able to decide who gets what house, when and at what price and that all to be considered Ďfairí and Ďaffordableí

    Then there is the massive question of how you would actually deliver your huge building programme logistically.

    Then there is the lessons of the past. Councils were terrible landlords and huge swathes of their property portfolios suffered from poor build quality but most importantly poor maintenance. The concept of building a massive amount of cheap housing rented out at way below market rates simply shows me that the same would happen. Poor build quality followed by councils cutting maintenance budgets to a minimum in their already squeezed finances...leading to the inevitable result that saw large areas of council housing demolished or passed across to housing associations previously.

    Anyhoo as I said we could go back and forward for a long time but I think we would just find out that we were still approaching this issue from different directions

    As for what I would do...well believe it or not I think a lot has actually already been done:

    New affordability tests on mortgages (the whole house price inflation started when the basic 3x max on one earner was lifted)

    Buy to Let tax break removals and additional stamp duty. This has led to a huge decrease in BTL mortgage applications and has made small time / part time landlords a significantly less profitable space to be in.

    Stronger and longer tenancy rights (particularly in Scotland)

    Additionally I think we just need to look at why housing is expensive. Up to 75% of the cost of a new build is the land cost. You want to make housing cheaper then make the land cheaper. Why is the land so expensive...largely because of restrictive planning laws and regulations imposed by government and councils!

    Finally I would go one step further and be hated by everyone. I would abolish the capital gains tax exemption on peopleís primary residence thus taxing some of he massive unearned gains people have made. While on the flip side I would also abolish stamp duty or at the very least return it to the 0.5%.
    👍🏼

    One thing I donít understand is your criticism of the stateís ability to allocate housing fairly and what youíre comparing it too. As far as Iím aware, the state presently allocates houses according to need and size of family, and the rent is dependant in size of house and ability to pay. Whatís fairer than that? If the market was allowed to allocate resources we would have wealthy individuals in palaces and poor families living in squalor. ;-)

    Thereís also the quality of housing and maintenance. Granted, a lot of social housing was a disaster but a lot of that was down to experimental techniques and designs that didnít work. As someone else stated there are plenty of estates still standing with excellent, spacious housing which puts modern builds to shame in every way. Maintenance could be improved by learning lessons and pricing rents accordingly (a reasonable council rent that covers all overheads would seem like a bargain compared to private rents where the tennant is covering someoneís mortgage payments, agents fees etc..)

    Iíd also have said that having a lack of social housing is terribly inefficient. We all accept that a percentage of people have to be housed who simply canít pay, so whatís better in the long term from the councils point of view? Paying for the build (not indefinitely) and upkeep of a council house or paying a private landlord or a guest house an extortionate sum to house families where the bill will probably only increase every year.🤔

    Edit: Iím not sure if this has been a natural tangent or the mother of all hijacks 😂
    Last edited by Pete; 22-02-2018 at 03:08 PM.

  23. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    👍🏼

    One thing I donít understand is your criticism of the stateís ability to allocate housing fairly and what youíre comparing it too. As far as Iím aware, the state presently allocates houses according to need and size of family, and the rent is dependant in size of house and ability to pay. Whatís fairer than that? If the market was allowed to allocate resources we would have wealthy individuals in palaces and poor families living in squalor. ;-)

    Thereís also the quality of housing and maintenance. Granted, a lot of social housing was a disaster but a lot of that was down to experimental techniques and designs that didnít work. As someone else stated there are plenty of estates still standing with excellent, spacious housing which puts modern builds to shame in every way. Maintenance could be improved by learning lessons and pricing rents accordingly (a reasonable council rent that covers all overheads would seem like a bargain compared to private rents where the tennant is covering someoneís mortgage payments, agents fees etc..)

    Iíd also have said that having a lack of social housing is terribly inefficient. We all accept that a percentage of people have to be housed who simply canít pay, so whatís better in the long term from the councils point of view? Paying for the build (not indefinitely) and upkeep of a council house or paying a private landlord or a guest house an extortionate sum to house families where the bill will probably only increase every year.🤔

    Edit: Iím not sure if this has been a natural tangent or the mother of all hijacks 😂

    Apologies for jumping into his rather interesting exchange. Good reading.

    I know one issue with housing in he past is when children flee the nest parents can be left with a property that is ideally designed for a family, not a couple or single person. How we get these properties recycled and back into the stock is important as sooner or later we have pensioners sitting in 3 bed homes. Is blocking the next family coming through.

    Having a system in place that supported families by providing them with big enough home to bring up kids with a proviso that you must downsize when the kids flee the nest could be one way if doing it.

  24. #263
    @hibs.net private member Mibbes Aye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by beensaidbefore View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Apologies for jumping into his rather interesting exchange. Good reading.

    I know one issue with housing in he past is when children flee the nest parents can be left with a property that is ideally designed for a family, not a couple or single person. How we get these properties recycled and back into the stock is important as sooner or later we have pensioners sitting in 3 bed homes. Is blocking the next family coming through.

    Having a system in place that supported families by providing them with big enough home to bring up kids with a proviso that you must downsize when the kids flee the nest could be one way if doing it.
    Certainly this has been a major issue with council housing. Most local authorities have offered cash and non-cash incentives to mainly older people to 'downsize' and free up family-size stock and this has been the case for many years. Uptake has often been poor though.
    There's only one thing better than a Hibs calendar and that's two Hibs calendars

  25. #264
    @hibs.net private member McD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Livingston
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Certainly this has been a major issue with council housing. Most local authorities have offered cash and non-cash incentives to mainly older people to 'downsize' and free up family-size stock and this has been the case for many years. Uptake has often been poor though.


    Definitely a problem that creates challenges.

    when my twin nephews were born, my sister, Brother-in-law and the 2 kids were staying in a 1 bedroom flat, which the council told them was big enough and they wouldnít be offered anything bigger until they accrued more points on the list (they declined to explain how points could be accrued or explain why 4 people living in a single bedroom abode was deemed ok). It took the local MSP to step in on their behalf for them to be offered something more suitable size wise. Whilst this was happening, there was a single elderly lady living next door in a 4 bedroom house.

    I think there should be something in your tenancy agreement with the council that they can move you to a smaller property at no cost to the tenant within the same locale if/when your family naturally moves out and on to their own home as they become adults.
    That said, I can also see an argument that someone could have lived there with their partner and children for decades, and now is widowed and alone, but sees the property as their long term home (rightly) and somewhere where they have memories and links to their loved ones and so would be reluctant and possibly heart broken to leave.

  26. #265
    @hibs.net private member Mibbes Aye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by McD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Definitely a problem that creates challenges.

    when my twin nephews were born, my sister, Brother-in-law and the 2 kids were staying in a 1 bedroom flat, which the council told them was big enough and they wouldnít be offered anything bigger until they accrued more points on the list (they declined to explain how points could be accrued or explain why 4 people living in a single bedroom abode was deemed ok). It took the local MSP to step in on their behalf for them to be offered something more suitable size wise. Whilst this was happening, there was a single elderly lady living next door in a 4 bedroom house.

    I think there should be something in your tenancy agreement with the council that they can move you to a smaller property at no cost to the tenant within the same locale if/when your family naturally moves out and on to their own home as they become adults.
    That said, I can also see an argument that someone could have lived there with their partner and children for decades, and now is widowed and alone, but sees the property as their long term home (rightly) and somewhere where they have memories and links to their loved ones and so would be reluctant and possibly heart broken to leave.
    I find it hard to disagree and suspect many others would share this view. As far as I understand however, legislation prevents this. Council tenants are subject to Scottish Secure Tenancies. As a consequence (and this isn't an area of expertise for me, so I may have this slightly wrong) they have rights in most circumstances around assignation and succession for their rented property but also cannot be moved/evicted unless the local authority gets a court order. The criteria for eviction are very specific and the kind of things you would guess - rent arrears, using the property for illegal or immoral purposes, anti-social behaviour etc.

    Essentially, Scottish legislation offers a lot of protection to tenants, especially those in social housing, but increasingly I think to those renting privately. There are arguments as to why that is a good and proper thing. By the same token, one of the consequent issues is the inability to 'enforce' downsizing, so we end up with already cash-strapped councils offering cash incentives that aren't enough to motivate tenants to downsize, and the councils then paying out fortunes in B+B/private lets to house families because they don't have access to appropriate stock through their own estate or through housing associations.
    There's only one thing better than a Hibs calendar and that's two Hibs calendars

  27. #266
    First Team Breakthrough
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    136
    Thread hijacked!

  28. #267
    Testimonial Due Colr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,723

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved