Printable View
Not to mention the fact they keep ignoring planning reform (I know this isn’t a budget issue). It’s the one thing that costs nothing, delivers economic growth and also helps solve housing problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.transformingplanning.scot/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Every local authority has a duty to produce a local plan for development every 5 years. It identifies future opportunities for all development.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-67944481
Not sure how long it will take though.
Great news and exactly what we need. Terrible name though.[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is this the site that was knocked back from the Scottish government a few years ago? Think Edinburgh council approved it first!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Biggest problem with that area are the roads. They’ll need to do something substantial on the A8, or it will gridlock around the airport
Already got a train and tram stop though so not as much infrastructure needed. I’m sure road will be upgraded as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to the articleQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
The development is designed so residents could live there without needing a car.
Developers said the site would also have 27 acres of parks and a network of cycle, running and walking tracks.
They should be made to build all the promised parks, schools etc before any houses to stop them backing out of them once the house building starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I would hate to live on that stretch of road but I’m sure it will suit plenty of people.
Read the link and was almost going to word for word write your reply, ****** West TownQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That surely won’t survive the first marketing meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a fairly new development/site proposal due to Edinburgh Airport giving up their crosswind runway and associated land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
There was another proposal a good few years back, across the A8. Land owned by David Murray and being touted as a "garden city".
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibee
This place is near me: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-66156561
Promised shops, cafes, sports facilities and a GP, then just built the houses and pissed off.
Noticed there’s a director called John Fyfe Hyland, listed as a director of this new build at the airport
Is he the ex Hibs man
The new village at Bertha Park on the outskirts of Perth, the first thing built was the high school.Quote:
Originally Posted by nonshinyfinish
To be fair, they put in a train station here long before anyone needed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nonshinyfinish
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I argued for a living rent on here in good faith, oz said it would increase rents as it has in every city that has tried it. It obviously did. Argentina has deregulated rent and prices have fallen 20% and availability has doubled. Supply and demand
https://twitter.com/MrRBourne/status...72753851728055
https://www.heraldscotland.com/opini...83&date=200124
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct me if I am wrong, because of legislation introduced by the Scottish Government being so rigid, the developers are not building family homes but student accommodation instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Yes. It’s perfectly logical. Build a family home and you can’t raise the rent in line with inflation then eventually you are going to be losing money. Build student accomodation and you can raise the rent because students move out every summer and you are allowed to raise rent on new tenancies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
That’s not the biggest problem though. The biggest issue is developers not building in Scotland at all. Why build in Scotland when England offers a less risky environment?
This is already happening with several developments being cancelled.
The more this happens, the higher rents will rise for new tenancies and the more landlords will leave the industry.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think housing is possibly the biggest issue in the UK if not now certainly the next 50 years. I don't understand why it doesn't get the press. Possibly as its easier to deflect, possibly as no major party can hold there head up in having helped the matterQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
No major party even has an interest in it at the moment. It’s baffling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://x.com/danielhewittitv/status...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
I imagine this won’t be much different in Scotland.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24...ing-need-know/
Rent freeze is being ditched. A move towards common sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even the Scottish Government are struggling to find good value rentals in Edinburgh now, according to this they spent £29,546.67 renting a 3 bed flat for Humza and his family for 5 months.
https://news.stv.tv/east-central/sco...-house-repairs
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/aba...uncil-takeover
A tiny move but it's in the right direction, and if other owners aren't willing to use the property then get them bought up.
I’m sure there is a reason for it but why don’t the council just rent them out themselves rather than hand to housing association?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Answer is in the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I read an article that said Edinburgh Council had 1500 empty flats but did not have the funds to bring them up to rentable standards.
Can I CPO some of them ? :greengrin
Check out Wheatley Homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Just had a quick look at what’s available, there’s a 2 bed flat for £76pw, no wonder they get so many applications at that price.Quote:
Originally Posted by w pilton hibby
Another article explaining the rush to switch to student flats, Gordon Smith and Hibs even get a mention.
https://www.cockburnassociation.org....ordable-homes/
The rent freeze will be over soon so hopefully things will get moving again. A terrible policy that even the Greens don’t seem to be fighting too hard to bring back.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Worth noting that it's not some landlord feeding frenzy after 31 March.
"If a tenant is concerned about the level of a proposed rent increase, they can raise it with their landlord or agent and apply to a rent officer at Rent Service Scotland, or to the First-tier Tribunal if applicable, for a rent adjudication.
The regulations would temporarily modify the rent adjudication process for 12 months so that on making a decision on adjudication, the rent officer would use a rent taper formula which can be summarised as below:
If the gap between the market rent and the current rent is 6% or less, then the landlord can increase the rent by the proposed amount, as long as this is not more than the market level.
If the gap between the market rent and the current rent is more than 6%, the landlord can increase the rent by 6% plus an additional 0.33% for each percent that the gap between the current rent and market rent exceeds 6%, as per the formula set out in the Rent Adjudication (Temporary Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. However, the total rent increase cannot exceed 12% of the current rent.
https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/...-rent-cap-ends
The madness of this policy has pushed market rents up for new tenancies so far that many existing tenants are now sitting well below market rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I suspect lots of tenants will be getting emails on 1st April with substantial increases. Although I don’t think they will bring the policy back, until it’s ruled out officially then landlords will not want to be caught out again.
The whole idea has been a disaster for tenants and not great for landlords either.
And it’s not like there wasn’t evidence from around the world showing what a disaster it would be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No they won't because there are still controls around rent rises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
"If the gap between the market rent and the current rent is more than 6%, the landlord can increase the rent by 6% plus an additional 0.33% for each percent that the gap between the current rent and market rent exceeds 6%, as per the formula set out in the Rent Adjudication (Temporary Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. However, the total rent increase cannot exceed 12% of the current rent".
https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/...-rent-cap-ends
Evidence from around the world (as in two places, Argentina and Australia is it ?) that fits your agenda and is totally irrelevant to property in Scotland.
It's landlords that have pushed rents up, not a policy. You seem to struggle with distinguishing the impact of greed with the effect of legislation attempting to reduce the impact of that greed.
The controls limit rises to 12%. That will be small consolation for a tenant whose rent goes up by 10%.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Everywhere rent controls have been attempted has ended in failure. Look it up if you like. Better still, show me an example of them working.
Govt setting prices in anything doesn’t work. Otherwise, wouldn’t all govts do it? Surely it would be an election winner to say steaks will now only cost £1 maximum. Who could possibly be against that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You equate every Landlord to being greedy..doesn’t help the argument to come across as balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
What would be balanced is providing evidence of where rental control have worked.
You are right that though that specific read across from where they have been tried is not always easy as planning and housing varies so much in countries. That would hold for where (if?) they have been proven to be successful as well.
Berlin is also a great example of what havoc controls can have.
But it’s hard to see what this policy has done in terms of long term benefit and the article above re student accommodation shows just the danger of such things and their unintended consequences.
I think what I said is correct and I definitely didn't suggest that all landlords are greedy, did I?Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
"It's landlords that have pushed rents up, not a policy. You seem to struggle with distinguishing the impact of greed with the effect of legislation attempting to reduce the impact of that greed".
I think rent controls were well intended in Scotland and the on-going efforts to minimise the impact of exploitative rent rises is well considered.
The issue of rent controls is complex. Berlin, Buenos Aires, Melbourne (not sure if that was the Australian example), vastly different cities, with very different housing cultures from Scotland.
If a landlords costs go up then he is going to have to pass that on or he will go bust. Same as any business. That’s not greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/sco...st-time-buyers
Scottish Labour get on on the market distorting nonsense of discounts for first time buyers. It won’t work.
There is a train away line about planning on there so maybe there is some hope?
Just come out and say you are going to build more houses and show us how you plan to do it. All the rest is just noise or worse, something the makes the problem worse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And maybe look to cut the punitive taxation charged at higher levels via LBTT as well…the impact of that in the likes of Edinburgh must be substantial in terms of discouraging people to move (upsize or downsize or even sideways).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
This relentless (and as you say often counter productive) focus on ‘helping’ just the ‘first time buyer’ totally ignores the fact that supply of existing stock is just as important as new stock.
Enabling more existing owners to move more freely (I.e. not have to find a large tax lump to pay for the privilege of moving) would surely help to increase availability and suitability. Which in turn can help moderate prices as there is more supply on the secondary market.
But my meander aside I agree in general…more hot air and more false promises while also pretending it’s all in the politicians hands to solve it all quickly.
Edinburgh is ridiculous, boy at work pays 500 for a room but this takes the biscuit
https://twitter.com/AlternativeEdin/...94748655780063
https://youtu.be/DPh4PN8e0ds?si=iUWSOm2J0QOh_Pj2
Great video about how Finland set about eradicating homelessness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/homebui...fluence-prices
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pr...d-rent-crisis/
Won’t happen but it would definitely help.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.ft.com/content/a1ec4f19-...a-e42f6b0f3846
https://www.ft.com/content/a1ec4f19-...a-e42f6b0f3846
From Simon Kuper-Financial Times
How to reduce homelessness? The frustrating thing is that we know what works. Statutory homelessness fell 69 per cent from 2003 to 2010, largely because the Labour government prioritised an unpopular issue. The solution: build social housing, while providing treatment and counselling to help people recover.
Prevention is better. We could plug the holes in the safety net, such as the point of exit from care or prison, when many become homeless. That would reduce the fortunes we’re spending on temporary housing, emergency healthcare, addiction treatment and prison, which all serve to keep people “just not homeless”. Tucker marvels at how much she cost society during nearly 20 years of addiction. Bird asks: “Why do we put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not a fence at the top?”
All the solutions are known and available to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.ft.com/content/5c49931e-...7-3fc2bc18f0d2
From 2005, but still relevant?
Why the housing ladder doesn't exist anymore
The calculations above are overly generous to the case for buying a flat, because they leave out the often very large maintenance costs incurred by owning property, the need to buy home insurance, transaction costs (and their risks) and so on. In the same way repayments are smaller earlier on, to counteract higher interest on a larger principal amount, the maintenance costs for older flats are often front-loaded on buyers. For many new-build flats which do not have front-loaded maintenance costs, the buyer is subject to high service fees built into the contract.
Buying a flat might seem an attractive strategy because it combines the consumption of housing services with investment. But this is also one reason it is a dangerous strategy. Whereas a highly-levered investment in equities with the £30,000 could result in, say, £100,000 or nothing, the highly-levered investment in the flat is worse in the bad scenario than it is good in the good scenario. In the scenarios in which the price falls, it is not only true that capital has been lost, as with the stocks. The owner of the capital is likely to be trapped in the flat, forced to consume a type of housing service they no longer want, indefinitely, precisely because they combined their living arrangement with their investment. This is a kind of unanticipated purgatorial externality.
Is a massive wealth tax on the super-rich one of them? Cause that's the only thing that's going to stop them buying up assets if the cost of living keeps on rising. Any solution simply has to see massive property portfolios being broken up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/17...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Good thread.
If I thought Labour were serious about proper reform of this I would vote for them.
https://www.ft.com/content/bef934b4-...5-447d5346dc1f
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uk has one of the lowest rates of second home ownership and also the one of the lowest rates of homes lying empty. I just wonder if it really is about supply like everyone with a slight clue has been screaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Yes no party is interested as far as i can see, even though its the biggest issue facing the under 30s
If I thought they were serious about not being a Tory Lite party I wou…………nah, I just couldn’t trust them to do anything radical enough to force real changeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Thing is, this is pro business, pro growth stuff. It’s just needs somebody to get it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure where you're getting your figures from and I'm not disputing them but TBF most if not all Scandinavian countries have a very high second home ownership figure due to them having Summer houses, houses/huts (hytte) they own and holiday in which probably skews the figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Lesley Riddoch does a very interesting series on various Nations, the Norway one includes an interview with a couple who explain the "hytte"
https://lesleyriddoch.com/films
The article I replied to? We've one of the lowest second home ownership in the whole of EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
"It cited a study showing 4 per cent of British households owned second homes for their own use, compared with 9 per cent in France, 17 per cent in Finland and 22 per cent in Spain"
"Share of adults who are landlords:
• UK 4.6%
• US 7%
• Austria 10%
• Germany 12%
• France 13%"
It’s a lot of fun to attack landlords and blame them for the housing shortage rather than our own nimbyism. Even if there are not enough of them and they actually provide housing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couldn’t agree more. The problem is who is going to get it done? I cannot see where the political will is to force the changes needed. It’s more of the same nonsense that created the present climate in the first placeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Another take.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...=share_btn_url
Couldn’t agree more. The problem is who is going to get it done? I cannot see where the political will is to force the changes needed. It’s more of the same nonsense that created the present climate in the first placeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
"Here, as in the US, we have been lured into a fruitless debate about supply. There is a confected dispute between anti-housebuilding “nimbys” and pro-housebuilding “yimbys”, led by energetic planning-law abolitionists, which seeks to distract us from talking about the ultimate sources of the housing crisis. The supply issue continues to dominate the discourse despite the US having more homes per capita than at any point in its history, and the UK’s homes-per-capita ratio actually exceeds the US’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
The yimby argument has always seemed flimsy. Its strange logic is that speculative developers would build homes in order to devalue them: that they would somehow act against their own interests by producing enough surplus homes to bring down the average price of land and housing. That would be surprisingly philanthropic behaviour"
Homes per capita?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Families are nowhere near the size they once were? People are no longer living in multi generational households?
Do you want to go back to that? Five kids sharing a bedroom?
Because that’s why home per capita doesn’t really tell us much?
And the article also states that London’s population hasn’t risen in 70 years?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does Big Housing pay political parties directly, on a register available for the public to inspect, to ensure that their interests stay protected, or is it done by nods and winks at The Garrick? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
It's utter nonsense and similar to the guardians bizarre take on this multiple times this year. It simply goes against supply and demand to say more housing won't decrease house prices. In every city that has relaxed housing laws and built, prices have came down of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
It also doesn't factor that immigration is running at net 700k the last few years. We've got one of the smallest amount of spare homes in Europe if we don't build homelessness is going to continue to increase in the dramatic way it has. The way uk works just now people happy with a home are the ones who decide if we build homes for those who don't, I can understand the tories being NIMBY but not others.
In only 10 years 700,000 more adults are living with parents than before and over 30s living with parents has went from 8% to 11%. The number of 30 year olds owning a home has went from 65% in 1960 to 30% now
We need to build all types of homes, private rental and purchase, student homes and most importantly social housing. No party is interested because young people are the ones suffering and they don't vote I suppose
https://news.stv.tv/politics/housebu...figures-reveal
This is what failure looks like. The SNP need to start focussing on what actually matters to people and stop all the culture war nonsense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shows us examples from British cities where what you say is borne out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Oz previously put up a study with about 8 different cities that had changed rules from neighbouring cities to increase housing and the prices dropped markedly in every one compared to the ones that did nothing. It's in this thread look back you commented on it im sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
How could I show uk examples when each city is governed by the same archaic planning laws. Housebuilding is ludicrously low nationwide. We have one of the lowest amount of spare homes in Europe, the lowest amount of landlords and one of largest net immigration figures and there is some people saying we don't need massive Housebuilding. The youth staying with their parents are saying it the boomers not so much
:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The proponents of relaxing planning restrictions and believers in the free market capacity to resolve the housing crisis are influenced by the likes of this. Clearly massively driven by ideology and anti socialist thinking from the right.
"The fashionable idea that Thatcherism caused Britain’s housing crisis is an extremely insular perspective, which assumes that state housebuilding is the norm, and deviating from it after 1980 was a crazed ideological experiment. In reality, it was postwar Britain that was the outlier, in that it relied on public housebuilding to an unusual extent. Far from being a golden age, the postwar decades were a period of relative decline, in housing as in so many other areas. We can argue about when precisely the rot set in, but it was definitely before 1980. The culprit is the planning system, and the focus on Thatcherism is a distraction. If you feel socially obliged to blame Thatcher – blame her for her failure to do anything on planning, not for the Right To Buy".
Written by HEAD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
Dr Kristian Niemietz is the IEA's Editorial Director, and Head of Political Economy. Kristian studied Economics at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and the Universidad de Salamanca, graduating in 2007 as Diplom-Volkswirt (≈MSc in Economics). During his studies, he interned at the Central Bank of Bolivia (2004), the National Statistics Office of Paraguay (2005), and at the IEA (2006). He also studied Political Economy at King's College London, graduating in 2013 with a PhD. Kristian previously worked as a Research Fellow at the Berlin-based Institute for Free Enterprise (IUF), and taught Economics at King's College London. He is the author of the books "Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies" (2019), "Universal Healthcare Without The NHS" (2016), "Redefining The Poverty Debate" (2012) and "A New Understanding of Poverty" (2011).
His other articles quoted here give a sense of where he's coming from. Universal Healthcare without the NHS....GTF
I’m massively in favour of freeing up the planning system, especially denser living in cities. I’m also in favour of a massive expansion in the building of state housing.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I don’t think any party is serious about either issue.
Arguing about ideologies is a waste of time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah, the guy is profoundly ideologically motivated, that informs his argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Planning does need reform, particularly to allow individuals more freedom to build there own homes in rural areas.
I agree with that. I also agree that there seems to be no political will in Britain to tackle the housing crisis through building social housing (no surprise, given the main parties are effectively cheeks of the same Neo-Liberal erse).
I think there our views probably part ways :-) .
https://x.com/patrickharvie/status/1...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Here is a man who can’t learn a lesson. Fresh from forcing Scottish rents up faster than anywhere else in the UK, he’s going to try and do it all again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quite a feat so far…lambasted by Shelter Scotland and the Association of Landlords. Bravo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Must take a special type of confidence in yourself always being right to be able to ignore all the evidence around you and plough on anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I had a fascinating chat with a pal who is a relatively senior Green Party insider a few weeks back and who isn't a fan of their leadership. There's apparently next to no internal division about the rent freeze policy they are trying to set in stone. It's expected to impact across all types of properties in the private rented sector, the vast majority of which are flats.
The person I was speaking with then asked me what type of tenure and property I thought the vast majority of Green Party membership live in...
https://youtube.com/shorts/nJfQwDt-A...og-iOsDMdKXfuW
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"This housing emergency has been decades in the making, and one born out of political choices. Through long-term, insufficient regulation in the private rented sector, Scotland has seen an extortionate rise in private rents year-on-year: rises which far exceed both inflation and wage increases. This is a trend across the UK, and Scotland’s people need to see parliament’s devolved powers on housing meaningfully put to work.
While the unaffordability of renting is a historical problem, the cost of living crisis has made the pressures on tenants far more acute. In the past year rents across Scotland increased by 14.3%, amounting to an average rent of £841 per month. Open market rent is significantly higher at an average of £1097 per month. This pressure is heightened in urban areas, with Greater Glasgow rents rising by 22.3%. In Lothian rents rose by 18.4% in the last year. It is important to note that these significant above-inflation rent hikes happened in the context of Scottish private rental sector stock increasing in number by 5,000 properties since Aug 2022.
We know that unaffordable rents are a major driver of poverty. Housing is the largest financial outgoing in most households, and while low pay is the main cause of escalating poverty rates, our market-driven housing system is the main driver of both poverty and wealth. Scotland’s lowest paid workers are forced to pay a significant proportion of their incomes on rent, with those on the minimum wage paying 50% or more of their take home pay, often on poor quality, badly insulated housing. When measured against the existing repairing standard in 2019, 50% of Scotland’s housing stock - across all tenures - had disrepair to a critical element.
This pressure is exacerbated by over a decade of wage stagnation and increasing costs for essentials including energy, fuel, food, and childcare. This further impacts on poverty levels. An estimated 11% of households in poverty were experiencing ‘very low’ food security – meaning that meals were skipped, or food intake reduced because the family could not afford enough food. The Scottish Government must deliver affordable, secure, quality housing in both the private and social sector if it is serious about achieving its 2030 poverty reduction targets.
The scale of this housing emergency has also placed considerable strain on our already-struggling local services. Local authorities in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Argyll and Bute have stated that they cannot fulfil their statutory duties of housing all who present homeless. Ensuring that everyone has access to a safe and affordable home is vital for alleviating pressure on other local services. The 2024 Scottish Homelessness Monitor suggests that homelessness will rise by 33% in Scotland this year.
With bold leadership and vision, this can be prevented. We ask that you introduce a national rent cap until the introduction of permanent and robust rent controls. Tenants across Scotland cannot afford to wait for change. The proposed ‘transitional’ rent adjudication measures announced in January are confusing and difficult to enforce. As a result we will see people facing unaffordable rent increases up and down the country, which will act as de facto evictions and push more people into poverty.
You have the power to address this crisis. We urge you to consider the emergency that tenants are facing post March 2024 and intervene before it reaches every local authority in Scotland".
https://www.livingrent.org/living_re...ch_open_letter
The fact that the IEA agrees so exactly with you tends to make me question your long-standing view on this subject!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Hugely influenced by right wing, Neo-Liberal thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
IEA are the ones doing the influencing. Didn't they put Truss up to her great experiment with the UK economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Right wing, left wing doesn’t really matter. What matters here is what works. There are zero successful rent cap system anywhere in the world. All they do is kill house building stone dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Try not to worry about who is saying what and look at the problem itself.
If price caps worked, why don’t we use them for everything? Shouldn’t we cap the price of a pint of milk? In fact why don’t we cap the price of all food? It’s a human right after all to eat?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
UKGov regulated the price of bread in the 1910s and 1920s. A period during which we won a World War and ran an Empire. So that worked, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Yes and they rationed food in the Second World War and won that as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
So anyone involved in a war just needs to cap the price of bread, bring out some ration books and hey presto they win the war and solve a housing crisis at the same time. Simples!
And had to ration bread. [emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ozzy likes to parrot the ideas that arise from right wing think tanks and guys that have very right wing views and thinks they apply to the Scottish issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I’m sure you are about to share with us an example of successful rent cap policy from around the world? There are plenty of places which have tried it?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Germany :dunno: Landlords can't raise the rent in the first 12 months and they cannot raise the rent above 15% over 3 years. Also rent cannot be more than 20% higher than comparable households in the area which is calculated every 4 years. I'm not sure of house prices over there though and whether landlords get tax relief or pay the rip off LBBT we have here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That’s a system that landlords could live with no problem. Not a rent cap though. And importantly it would not discourage investment in new houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87zgx42m5go
The Resolution Foundation think tank recently said that the most common living arrangement for an adult aged between 18 and 34 in 1997 was being in a couple with children, but now it was living with your parents.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pushed to the edge: Living Rent publishes findings from renters survey.
Some very concerning findings here, particularly around poor quality and unsafe accommodation and the impact on people's well being.
We don't need more private sector housing, Edinburgh is already bursting to the seams with new homes, most of which are unaffordable to citizens on minimum wage and low wage incomes. The green belt has been massively breached and you have to laugh at the nimby cliche. Like ordinary people have the power to object to development and have a voice that's listened to, when we know all too well the Scottish Government routinely overturn objections.
We need more social housing.
https://www.livingrent.org/pushed_to_the_edge
49.5% of private tenants have experienced a rent increase since January 2023. Just under three-quarters (73.5%) of these rent rises were limited to 3%, while the rest went up by an average of 25.7%. Higher rent increases were mostly due to landlords using loopholes in the rent cap, namely joint tenancy swaps as well as illegal rent increases following landlord pressuring a tenant.
84.2% are concerned that their landlord will increase the rent when the rent cap ends on 31 March 2024 with the majority (59.2%) expecting it will go up by 10% or higher.
More than 85% of renters concerned about their rent rising believe it will impact on their quality of life in various ways: 73.1% will have to cut back on non-essentials; 48.49% will have to cut back on essentials; 47.6% will be displaced from their neighbourhood or city; 36.9% might have to borrow money; 20.4% say they will be forced to move to another neighbourhood; 27.2% say they will be forced to leave the city altogether; 25.7% will have to take on more shifts at work; and 25.2% will be forced to take a second job.
73% of tenants said that worrying about rent increase has had an impact on their mental health (of which 46% said that worrying about rent increases has had a huge impact on their mental health).
61% of private tenants have outstanding disrepair problems in their home, averaging more than two issues per affected tenancy; 13.7% of private tenants have between 3 and 7 outstanding disrepair issues. 33.7% of private tenants are living with an outstanding structural disrepair (e.g. ceiling, windows, walls, roofs) and 31.7% of private renters are living with damp and mould. Just under half of private tenancies with disrepair experienced a rent increase after January 2023, and almost all suspect their landlord will put the rent up after 1 April 2024.
99.1% of tenants with disrepair say it has impacted their mental health. 62.2% of tenants with disrepair say it has adversely impacted their physical health. The vast majority of these health effects relate to respiratory (chest infections, asthma, colds, coughs, breathing) and skin conditions from the excessive cold, damp and mould issues tenants experience.
I agree we need more social housing.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shelter have previously said they want this policy and are against a rent cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
As Shelter says
"Rent levels are high because there are too many people who have to rent, and not enough homes available. Rents can only be reduced sustainably by increasing the overall supply of all types of homes, so that more people can get a social home or buy their own with a mortgage, and fewer private renters have to compete over each available home."
I find it utterly bizarre people (usually who have a home themselves) are against house building. We need all homes badly if we want prices to drop because er economics
https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2014/02/are-rent-caps-the-answer/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/05/a-rent-cap-in-name-only/%3famp=1
Usually quite rational, no? People who are eventually going to downsize want there to be as large a gap as possible between the value of their big house and their wee house, and that is best achieved if the value of both stays high, rather than both lowered by a glut of houses. Rational self-interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I see a lot of chat here about the lack of house building. I stay in West Lothian and there has been enormous amount of vast new estates being thrown up all over the place. Also other large estates in east Lothian both Musselburgh and next to A1 near the pans. Assume not enough particularly social housing.
We need all type of housing and all types of tenure. There needs to be more flats built in the city of Edinburgh as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that is the system working exactly as it was intended to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I'm not convinced mass home ownership was ever meant to last more than a generation or 2 and relying on peoples inherent desire to protect their own equity/financial well being as a tool to control that was quite probably a big part of the plan. A bit of inter generational conflict that sees the proles fighting among themselves is a decent distraction from focusing on the real 'enemy'.
The fact the state managed to shed responsibility for huge swathes of social housing and put the replacement into the hands of the private sector is a nice little bonus. The slow but steady shift to housing being provided by for profit associations either as stand alone or in partnership with the more typical not for profits is a sad but inevitable next step.
https://www.cala.co.uk/homes-for-sal...t-plaza-leith/
These properties are not serving the housing needs of those on low incomes. We can build on every green space, destroy many of the qualities that made Edinburgh a good place to live and still prices won't come down.
Does anyone, other than those with a vested interest, really believe that building more flats, houses in the private sector will make homes more accessible? It's a myth.
The answer is more social housing. This country has done it before, it can be done again. It needs political will, sadly lacking in the mainstream parties. They can find the money when they need to.
How much did the banking crisis cost the UK taxpayer? https://www.theguardian.com/politics...anking-bailout
Last December, the National Audit Office published a second report into the costs of the bail-out. That report concluded:
The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of £955bn to £512bn, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the government to support banks has risen by £7bn [to a total of £124bn] since December 2009.
But the NAO also concluded that costs would continue for years to come (i'll bet it did).
I've always felt when it comes to new builds there is a huge gap in the market for modest 2 and 3 bedroom homes at genuinely affordable prices. It's like people know but just won't accept that a huge number of people desperate to get on the property ladder are young to middle aged couples with school age children. People who can't afford 'luxury 3, 4 and 5 bedroom homes and apartments in one of Edinburgh's most sought after neighbourhoods' or for whom a 1 or 2 bedroom flat just isn't suitable. I suppose the obvious retort is that beggars can't be choosers but wanting a compact 2 or 3 bedroom house that is semi detached or a maisonette hardly screams 'ideas above their station' to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
There are 'affordable' home schemes in Edinburgh where the price range is set at between £230K and 370K. Who exactly is that affordable to? A couple on the average salary in Scotland (£27000ish) would be stretched pretty much at the extremes of what any responsible lender would give as a mortgage at the lower end of that scale. Of course wealthy people need homes to but don't market something as 'affordable' when it is quite clearly aimed at those on salaries significantly above what the average person earns.
It's the same with schemes like mid market rent. They were nominally aimed at couples looking to save for a deposit, as a short term measure to allow them to save on rent and thus save for a deposit. It's farcical; there are MMR flats behind the Jack Kane Centre that are charging £1100-1300 a month for a 2 bedroom flat. Again who is that aimed at that? Who is going to have enough disposable income after shelling out £1300 on rent and a further £150+ on council tax to make any meaningful progress on saving for a 5-10% deposit on an 'affordable' £300K home?
No one in a position to actually influence things wants there to be a massive shift when it comes to housing. It's why we have seen a lot of schemes that help a few people into ownership (and I'm sure those people are exceptionally grateful for them) but are largely focused on maintaining high prices and high value for existing owners. In all the years politicians of various shades have been sloganeering about 'creating generation buy' home ownership continues to stagnate overall and drop in those under 40. Only a fool would think that isn't by design.
Excellent post it is a scandal how difficult it is for young people to get on the property ladder or even a reasonably priced rented one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
We need all homes built 3,4 beds, student accommodation, flats, social housing.
We have one of the smallest amount of empty homes in Europe and an explosion of 30yo and under now living with their parents. Add in one of the highest net immigration in Europe and where are these people going to move into.
We need an enormous amount of houses built but no political party is interested.
Good post PB, mirrors many of my own thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
We were once sold the "dream" of home ownership so the Tories could flog our social housing stock on the cheap. Now we have a generational housing crisis whereby young people in work cannot buy property in the communities where they grew up. Instead they are forced into a cycle of rental which consumes a significant part of their incomes. The only winners here are the people who see property as a commodity, something to make profit from. I'm not talking individual landlords here, more corporate investment (like the 285 new flats being built solely for rental in Fountainbridge or the vast swathes of student flats appearing all over the city, like the development proposed and opposed at Dalton's scrappies on Salamander St (I wonder if the Living Rent movement and the many individuals who oppose this are Nimby's?).