Housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

You just ignore any attempt at debate or discussion and resort to bland, untrue, blanket statements. At least post something that has some substance behind it.

And no, studies from Buenos Aires, Melbourne or wherever do not apply to Scotland. Neither do the utterances of right wing think tanks or far right minded individuals deeply immersed in their own neo-liberal agendas.

---

I just haven’t seen anywhere in the world where controlling the price of anything did not lead to a drop in investment in producing that thing leading to shortages?
Maybe Scotland is different from the rest of the world in that respect? If so, we should def apply it in other areas as well. We should for sure make new iPhones only £500. And milk should only really be 10p a pint. Who in their right mind is not in favour of that? Why would this not work? What are they all doing down at Holyrood?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I just haven’t seen anywhere in the world where controlling the price of anything did not lead to a drop in investment in producing that thing leading to shortages?
Maybe Scotland is different from the rest of the world in that respect? If so, we should def apply it in other areas as well. We should for sure make new iPhones only £500. And milk should only really be 10p a pint. Who in their right mind is not in favour of that? Why would this not work? What are they all doing down at Holyrood?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Rent controls aren't determining investment in the production of new housing in Scotland. As for the rest, typical hysterical ramblings :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Rent controls aren't determining investment in the production of new housing in Scotland. As for the rest, typical hysterical ramblings :rolleyes:

---

Aw, I thought you were going to show me a successful example?[emoji2369]
And your first sentance is completely wrong.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ild-rent-plan/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely investment is determined by the returns achievable? An example would be a £300k property bought as a buy to let which costs £322600 when including landlord stamp duty but not including legals. I'd estimate the £300k would get you a new 3 bedroom home in todays market? I'd also estimate rent on that property to be around £1200 a month? That property returns a net yield of 4% when you include estimated yearly costs of £1500 which I think is fair. So your money is better off elsewhere. When you take the emotion out of the rental business the figures state it's becoming a mediocre investment at best.

The simple fact is that we need a lot of new social housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bee

Surely investment is determined by the returns achievable? An example would be a £300k property bought as a buy to let which costs £322600 when including landlord stamp duty but not including legals. I'd estimate the £300k would get you a new 3 bedroom home in todays market? I'd also estimate rent on that property to be around £1200 a month? That property returns a net yield of 4% when you include estimated yearly costs of £1500 which I think is fair. So your money is better off elsewhere. When you take the emotion out of the rental business the figures state it's becoming a mediocre investment at best.

The simple fact is that we need a lot of new social housing.

---

Even less, if you have to factor in a mortgage.

But I'd say it's more complicated than just the rental income. A lot of people invest in property for the capital growth, and the annual income is less of a driver. In those situations, depending on where the property is, the "return" can be much better (and more secure) than elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Even less, if you have to factor in a mortgage.

But I'd say it's more complicated than just the rental income. A lot of people invest in property for the capital growth, and the annual income is less of a driver. In those situations, depending on where the property is, the "return" can be much better (and more secure) than elsewhere.

---

Yup I agree, just trying to change the narrative from the morality of buy to let to simple hard facts over the actual viability of the business. Interestingly the example above would cost £1520 a month on a £300k mortgage over 30 years, that's obviously also putting down the stamp duty value as a deposit. I get a lot of landlords use interest only but that is one big gamble using the example above in todays climate. Add to that rent controls and it's becoming non investable in a big area of the sector. No idea if that's a good thing or not, do we need private lets in the housing market? I'd argue we do at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bee

Yup I agree, just trying to change the narrative from the morality of buy to let to simple hard facts over the actual viability of the business. Interestingly the example above would cost £1520 a month on a £300k mortgage over 30 years, that's obviously also putting down the stamp duty value as a deposit. I get a lot of landlords use interest only but that is one big gamble using the example above in todays climate. Add to that rent controls and it's becoming non investable in a big area of the sector. No idea if that's a good thing or not, do we need private lets in the housing market? I'd argue we do at the moment.

---

And if your a higher rate tax payer then your going to be paying about 20% tax on that £1520 a month. Fun.
I’m not sure of there a figure available but I would say there are a lot less people investing in housing than say 15-20 years ago. And it’s showing in the rents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we've just got to accept that we cannot both have a booming housing market where people get very rich with the commoditisation of shelter as well as having a property ladder that people who don't come from the property owning class can actually remotely aspire to ever get onto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Aw, I thought you were going to show me a successful example?[emoji2369]
And your first sentance is completely wrong.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ild-rent-plan/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

More unsustainable property commoditisation which contributes to the on-going concerns around gentrification in Glasgow.

"While not classed as affordable housing, the proposal approved by councillors would have been the first build-to-rent development in that part of the city.
That means all of the studio apartments, and one and two-bedroom flats, would have been built specifically for tenants rather than for selling"

I'll explain the key principles of the bill and outline why greed /profiteering and protecting tenants is being targeted by the Scottish Government, because we all know the market can't be trusted to regulate itself in a reasonable manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

I think we've just got to accept that we cannot both have a booming housing market where people get very rich with the commoditisation of shelter as well as having a property ladder that people who don't come from the property owning class can actually remotely aspire to ever get onto.

---

We need social housing and loads of it, new, well built, carbon neutral social housing powered by publicly owned renewable energy. I wonder how we go about getting that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bee

We need social housing and loads of it, new, well built, carbon neutral social housing powered by publicly owned renewable energy. I wonder how we go about getting that?

---

The state can borrow more cheaply than the private sector. It can be funded by the rents obtained. Building housing should not be a hard decision at all. There is a supply shortage.
I suspect that the reason it’s not happening is something to do with rules around what local govt is allowed to borrow for.
Weird things is, most people agree we need it (so long as it’s not near them[emoji849]) but it never happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The state can borrow more cheaply than the private sector. It can be funded by the rents obtained. Building housing should not be a hard decision at all. There is a supply shortage.
I suspect that the reason it’s not happening is something to do with rules around what local govt is allowed to borrow for.
Weird things is, most people agree we need it (so long as it’s not near them[emoji849]) but it never happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There are some interesting stats estimating the savings to the public purse from taking families out of temporary accommodation and into secure affordable housing. The amounts spend on temporary accommodation in London are eye watering and going into the hands mostly of dodgy private landlords and private equity as well as hotels, hostels but the other savings to the health sector, education, and so on are pretty compelling. The spend to save argument is really strong.

Regretably, the housing association desperately need recapitalised as they are in real mess. Councils could take the homes but need to build capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

There are some interesting stats estimating the savings to the public purse from taking families out of temporary accommodation and into secure affordable housing. The amounts spend on temporary accommodation in London are eye watering and going into the hands mostly of dodgy private landlords and private equity as well as hotels, hostels but the other savings to the health sector, education, and so on are pretty compelling. The spend to save argument is really strong.

Regretably, the housing association desperately need recapitalised as they are in real mess. Councils could take the homes but need to build capacity.

---

I know of a council house in West Pilton empty for over a year because council doesn’t have money to renovate it. Rent is being lost because the estate is not being run properly. It’s a cracking 4 bed house as well in a nice wee cauldiesack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The state can borrow more cheaply than the private sector. It can be funded by the rents obtained. Building housing should not be a hard decision at all. There is a supply shortage.
I suspect that the reason it’s not happening is something to do with rules around what local govt is allowed to borrow for.
Weird things is, most people agree we need it (so long as it’s not near them[emoji849]) but it never happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not forgetting the limits imposed....

Under the Fiscal Framework Agreement, the Scottish Government can borrow*up to £3 billion cumulatively for capital expenditure, with an annual limit of £450 million in 2023-24.*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Not forgetting the limits imposed....

Under the Fiscal Framework Agreement, the Scottish Government can borrow*up to £3 billion cumulatively for capital expenditure, with an annual limit of £450 million in 2023-24.*

---

The only limit should be if there is enough rent can be charged to cover the payments. If so then it’s a no brainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I know of a council house in West Pilton empty for over a year because council doesn’t have money to renovate it. Rent is being lost because the estate is not being run properly. It’s a cracking 4 bed house as well in a nice wee cauldiesack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I read that East Lothian had around 500 long term empty council houses last year, the majority of those have been empty for longer than a year so I guess most other councils are in a similar position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I know of a council house in West Pilton empty for over a year because council doesn’t have money to renovate it. Rent is being lost because the estate is not being run properly. It’s a cracking 4 bed house as well in a nice wee cauldiesack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There are 2000+ empty council houses in Edinburgh.

It must be quicker and cheaper to get these up to a lettable standard than setting the wheels in motion for new developments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w pilton hibby

There are 2000+ empty council houses in Edinburgh.

It must be quicker and cheaper to get these up to a lettable standard than setting the wheels in motion for new developments.

---

They are not very good landlords.
This is likely down to the way they see the money. It will be seen as a cost rather than an investment.
They would be better selling them to the private sector. At least it would provide a home for someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

They are not very good landlords.
This is likely down to the way they see the money. It will be seen as a cost rather than an investment.
They would be better selling them to the private sector. At least it would provide a home for someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

... with the proviso that the new owner must provide accommodation for council tenants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

They are not very good landlords.
This is likely down to the way they see the money. It will be seen as a cost rather than an investment.
They would be better selling them to the private sector. At least it would provide a home for someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Just goes to show the difference in councils, I know West Lothian council were actively bidding on ex council houses up to the home report value. I know of one that was bought privately 7 years before at a heavily discounted rate and that was after heating, kitchen and a new bathroom was fitted for the council to come back in and bid the home report value. Absolutely crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... with the proviso that the new owner must provide accommodation for council tenants.

---

Means the selling price will be lower but still, it’s better than them sitting empty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know a house builder who can build houses cheaper than a local authority.

So much so, the local authority are now giving him land to deliver their quota of new housing.

Like most public sector projects, the costs involved are astronomical compared to the private sector.

Just a point from a post above….many build to rent schemes have been cancelled/mothballed due to rent controls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

I know a house builder who can build houses cheaper than a local authority.

So much so, the local authority are now giving him land to deliver their quota of new housing.

Like most public sector projects, the costs involved are astronomical compared to the private sector.

Just a point from a post above….many build to rent schemes have been cancelled/mothballed due to rent controls.

---

I could build cheaper than a local authority as well. Surely most contractors could?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good news for those who think landlords are the problem. Stamp duty in Scotland for landlords has gone up to 11%. That should discourage plenty from entering the market.
Rents will rise though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Good news for those who think landlords are the problem. Stamp duty in Scotland for landlords has gone up to 11%. That should discourage plenty from entering the market.
Rents will rise though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

i think they are part of the problem, but in a fairly subtle way - IMO, the problem with small-time landlords is that they're something of a political bulwark for the portfolio holding types. It's also just a crap system that entirely relies on the government genuinely supporting and defending the interests of tenants, which no government will be allowed to do if it wants to keep people with money on-side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

i think they are part of the problem, but in a fairly subtle way - IMO, the problem with small-time landlords is that they're something of a political bulwark for the portfolio holding types. It's also just a crap system that entirely relies on the government genuinely supporting and defending the interests of tenants, which no government will be allowed to do if it wants to keep people with money on-side.

---

Portfolio landlords buying 6 or more properties together won’t pay it.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Portfolio landlords buying 6 or more properties together won’t pay it.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I agree that it's not a solution...i think there needs to be wider discussion about how we do housing in general, because our current system relies on so many people not being greedy at so many levels that it can't work - the best it can hope for is occassional patch ups that kick the can down the road.

I'd read the UK would need 6 million homes to have the same amount of spare homes as the average oecd nation and normal countries like Germany. Scotland has less spare homes than England, but still, 500k council houses built in Scotland would blunt all power from the private landlord and decimate rent prices.

Labour should borrow to make it happen, they won't, they probably won't hit the pathetic 1.5 mil target

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'd read the UK would need 6 million homes to have the same amount of spare homes as the average oecd nation and normal countries like Germany. Scotland has less spare homes than England, but still, 500k council houses built in Scotland would blunt all power from the private landlord and decimate rent prices.

Labour should borrow to make it happen, they won't, they probably won't hit the pathetic 1.5 mil target

---

And nothing will boost Reform more than lack of access to housing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And nothing will boost Reform more than lack of access to housing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yes it's also why we need immigration which also boosts reform. 46% of 16 to 34 year old males now live with their parents, due to lack of houses and high rents. That explains our plummeting birth rate. With an aging population if we want pensions to be paid in 30 years we need young people. You either get that by having kids or importing people.