eviltwin wrote: » They probably disown them I would have thought living through the recession would make us all a bit more humble, a bit more grateful for what we have and more emphatic to people who find themselves in a bad place.
14dMoney wrote: » If you're able-bodied, you've no excuse to be unemployed in this climate.
eviltwin wrote: » In theory
misterme123 wrote: » There are so many threads like this. Ridiculous stuff like would you live beside someone on the dole, or would you date someone earning less than you. It's amazing how many people seem to live in a little middle class bubble. Surely even wealthy people here have some friends/family on social welfare.
_Brian wrote: » But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway. Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.
JustMe,K wrote: » I don't see how it would keep everyone happy? We should go back to social housing being a helping hand for people rather than a 'foreva home'.
lalababa wrote: » Mixed A. council and B.affordable and C.private is the way to go imho. A little bit of A , a little bit more of B, and a good lump of C. And any As acting the maggot dealt with severly. The B's & C's will influence the A's overtime. If you put all A's together there is a tendency for things to go downhill. And the loophole (if still there) of a developer being able to buy out the social clause should be abandoned. I would suggest a mix let's say out of 100 houses, that there be 5to10 As, 10to20 B's and 70to85 Cs. And all mixed up over the estate.
_Brian wrote: » It’s an effort to avoid building slums. By mixing people from different socio economic groups they hope one half will help police the other half and the overall neighbourhood settle at an acceptable behaviour level. But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway. Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » If the house is your home, does that matter? And house values fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.
Padraig Mor wrote: » QFT. While it would be completely incorrect to suggest that a majority of those living in council houses are scumbags, it is without doubt that the vast majority of scumbags live in council houses, or other free / subsidized accommodation. I think very few middle class people mind living near poor people - but they sure as hell don't want scumbags for neighbours. There should be no council houses mixed in with private buyers due to the high risk of scummers - of which only a tiny number are required to destroy an estate. However, some of the points above re mixing social strata etc are correct and I believe that 'private' housing estates should have a significant portion of affordable housing whereby low waged working people can buy a house at a large discount (of, say, 50%) but will, crucially, pay for and own it themselves, thus investing them in the area and its community. If we continue to insist on giving free houses to those who refuse to find work, they should be located in 100% social estates.
misterme123 wrote: » Most poor people don't want anti-social neighbours either.
14dMoney wrote: » That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.
14dMoney wrote: » I'm sure that they don't. However if you pay for your own place, it's not unreasonable to expect your neighbors to have paid aswell.
14dMoney wrote: » Because who wants to lose money?
pablo128 wrote: » You could buy a house in a new development where the builder guarantees no social housing will be included. A year down the line, your neighbour decides to emigrate or whatever and rents the house out to travellers on HAP. Tough luck.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » There’s no guarantee anyone will make a profit on the house they bought if they resell it. None at all. For many reasons. So people probably shouldn’t be fretting about the potential selling price of their home. Especially if they buy in a mixed estate and benefit from a lower asking price themselves. Obsession with house prices and house-flipping contributed to the bubble. Maybe people should worry about it less.
FTA69 wrote: » No that’s the last thing we need to do, create estates as dumping grounds for the unemployed, addicted and the general poor etc. What’s far better for society is people mixing; social housing was largely a success in London because it was mixed and in areas that also had wealthy people - in other words a healthy type of society. Social housing needs to be built en masse and made available to working people who live in the cities.
14dMoney wrote: » Luckily landlords as a general rule of thumb, have more than 7 brain cells, so this rarely, if ever happens.
caff wrote: » We should aim for the Singapore model, 80% of people live in public housing. If people want something more or different they are welcome to purchase it themselves. The default for most people in Singapore though is public housing, no stigma about it there.
pablo128 wrote: » If you don't want poor poorer people than yourself living next door to you, buy the house either side of you or buy a rural one off house. You absolutely don't get a say in who lives next door to you. Stop being a snob and looking down on others less fortunate than yourself.
14dMoney wrote: » There's no guarantee, but why throw another spanner in the works which is guaranteed to devalue a home?
14dMoney wrote: » Why would you want the majority of people reliant on the government? What is this new obsession with everyone thinking that the government should provide a lifelong nipple for people to suckle on? Where's the pride in that?
