4 ms·

In the UK, property developers are forced by the govt to build a certain proportion of social housing into their developments, or to subsidise the building of s

by cbeach 3y ago

In the UK, property developers are forced by the govt to build a certain proportion of social housing into their developments, or to subsidise the building of social housing elsewhere. Obviously, this means the high end property is less desirable (because big spenders are forced to live next-door to social housing tenants). And the social housing built will be boxy and low standard, so again, less desirable, and unprofitable for the developer. Whenever the govt distorts free markets, it creates shortages. And housing is one of those markets where we REALLY need the private sector to be allowed to build properties that will meet true market demands, rather than properties that will satisfy govt ideologies. If housebuilding was unconstrained, there would be more of it, which would be good for people at both ends of the market. More high end property means lower prices at the high end, more people moving up out of mid-scale housing, and so on. Prices would fall across the board, and eventually no one would need social housing. We’d ALL benefit.

angrais 3y ago
For reference, this isn't always the case. It is possible for building companies to provide incentives to local authorities to bypass this (£££). Absolutely ridiculous but unfortunately true.
Nextgrid 3y ago
Social housing doesn't have to be bad. It has a (justified) bad reputation because of the crime and antisocial behavior it brings along, which it can do because law enforcement has completely dropped the ball. Social housing can be fine as long as any antisocial behavior is properly addressed by criminal prosecution and evicting problematic tenants. The problem is that isn't happening in practice, and property managers themselves can't do anything about it (dissuasive measures such as CCTV no longer work from my experience, as in my building people from the "affordable" area - or their friends - are happily vandalizing doors and stealing mail in full view of the CCTV).
- nsteel 3y ago
  This is bang on the money. And exactly describes the state of my building in London, perhaps you are my neighbour. In my case, we've just been given the option to vote (cause that always works so well) to take on a private security service to do the job the police are not able - control the drug dealing and ASB that's ruining the area. It strikes me as pretty odd that since a chunk of the development is social housing, is the state essentially paying for part of the private security?

by cbeach 3y ago

angrais 3y ago

For reference, this isn't always the case. It is possible for building companies to provide incentives to local authorities to bypass this (£££). Absolutely ridiculous but unfortunately true.

Nextgrid 3y ago

Social housing doesn't have to be bad. It has a (justified) bad reputation because of the crime and antisocial behavior it brings along, which it can do because law enforcement has completely dropped the ball. Social housing can be fine as long as any antisocial behavior is properly addressed by criminal prosecution and evicting problematic tenants. The problem is that isn't happening in practice, and property managers themselves can't do anything about it (dissuasive measures such as CCTV no longer work from my experience, as in my building people from the "affordable" area - or their friends - are happily vandalizing doors and stealing mail in full view of the CCTV).

nsteel 3y ago
This is bang on the money. And exactly describes the state of my building in London, perhaps you are my neighbour. In my case, we've just been given the option to vote (cause that always works so well) to take on a private security service to do the job the police are not able - control the drug dealing and ASB that's ruining the area. It strikes me as pretty odd that since a chunk of the development is social housing, is the state essentially paying for part of the private security?