4 ms·
The UK experience of social housing was less bad than in the US, probably because it was a much larger proportion of the housing stock. There were still some te
by laurencerowe 11y ago
The UK experience of social housing was less bad than in the US, probably because it was a much larger proportion of the housing stock. There were still some terrible housing estates and I do think mixed-income housing is desirable.
Going from building half of new homes as social housing to subsidizing rents through housing benefit turned out to be horribly expensive. With many fewer new homes being built rents have increased and ever increasing subsidies are needed.
Interesting radio programme on this the other day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx
More background: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n01/james-meek/where-will-we-live http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n01/james-meek/where-will-we-live
- spangry 11y agoNotwithstanding my above comment, this is a valid concern that governments need to address if they move to a 'untied rent subsidy' approach. In my opinion, the best way to address this problem is to take measures that increase the elasticity of housing supply, and reduce distortions in housing and land markets. So things like: replacing transfer duties with land value taxation, relaxation of zoning regulations, removal of any unnecessary regulations on dwelling density/height etc. Hell, they could probably achieve a pareto improvement (though probably a lower one) by completely separating government supply of additional housing stock and provision of rent subsidies. In other words, it would be better, relative to current social housing schemes, if the government just built and sold houses at market value while separately providing rent subsidies to the financially disadvantaged.