Public housing

[Miss Chicken]

I was just reading a story from last year about a 83 year old man in Britain who has lived in the same three-bedroom council house since he was 9 years old. His parents were the original tenants, when they died his sister took over the tenancy (he was living with her) but after her death he was allowed to sign a six month tenancy. After that ran out the council wanted him to move in a one-bedroom flat. However he went to the newspapers and in the end he was allowed to stay.

Here in Hobart I know of several women who are living alone in three bedroom public owned houses. When they originally moved into the house they had children but the children have grown up and moved into their own homes. The women have been allowed to keep renting the houses despite their being a shortage of three bedroom homes available to families.

Do you think such people should be moved out of such under-occupied houses?

 

[Amaris]

Yes, he should move to a single bedroom apartment if he is the only person living in subsidized housing that is built for larger families. By staying where he is, he is ensuring that a family is out on the street, when he can easily move. I understand the emotional attachment he may have to the building, but if it's government authorized social/public housing, then he needs to move to that one bedroom. The same applies to anyone else in that situation.

 

[Miss Chicken]

My view is that, if they want to stay in a larger house they should pay extra rent at the very least.

Rent in Australia is determined by the income of all the people living in the house. I currently live with two sons in a three bedroom house and I am paying $172 a week. I have an unemployed friend who is living by herself in a three bedroom house and she is only paying $50 a week. The Housing Department has suggested that she moves into a one bedroom home but she refuses to do so.

If there was a minimum rent set for each size place, maybe $50 for a one bedroom, $80 for a two bedroom and $110 for a three bedroom than people might be more inclined to move. People like me would still have to pay more than minimum rent because of the household income.

 

[Amaris]

My view is that, if they want to stay in a larger house they should pay extra rent at the very least.

Rent in Australia is determined by the income of all the people leaving in the house. I currently live with two sons in a three bedroom house and I am paying $172 a week. I have an unemployed friend who is living by herself in a three bedroom house and she is only paying $50 a week. The Housing Department has suggested that she moves into a one bedroom home but she refuses to do so.

If there was a minimum rent set for each size place, maybe $50 for a one bedroom, $80 for a two bedroom and $110 for a three bedroom than people might be more inclined to move. People like me would still have to pay more than minimum rent because of the household income.

See, that sounds very reasonable. It's a shame that people are refusing to move in these situations. I mean, if you owned your house, and it was a 3 bedroom and you were the only one living in it, I'd say you could do whatever you wanted. If one rents a 3 bedroom and is in a contract, then again, one should have the right to stay there.

In this case, since it's subsidized housing, and one person is taking up a 3 bedroom better suited for a family in need, it's time to pack up and move to a one bedroom. Hell, when I was little, my family and I lived in a car! We'd have been thrilled to have a subsidized home, particularly since it was the dead of winter!

 

[lurok]

This issue came up again recently in UK with claims there were (6,000?, I think) persons in social housing who were earning over £100,000 a year and debate about whether they should be made to vacate. Not sure what it's like in other countries or states, but here we have a mix of public housing controlled by local authorities, charities and non-profit organisations, sometimes in conjunction with each other. The charity aspect I think goes back to Victorian/Edwardian eras when businesses, philanthropists and religious bodies like Quakers built housing to alleviate slum conditions and house poor, or provide low-rent housing for workers. But the hot potato issue is local authority housing, which has long waiting lists (several years) and low stocks which many blame on the government sell-off/right to buy that happened in the 80s (I think). It's demand outstripping supply, and currently throws up all kinds of claims like immigrants/asylum seekers being given preference (statistics shown to be untrue); teenage girls getting pregnant just to get housing; and free housing for benefit claimants who never work.

In an ideal world, I'd hope there'd be enough housing to help everyone. But as this unrealistic and if needs changing/prioritising, I'd opt for: homeless, ex-military and key low-pay public workers (nurses, police, etc) as priorities; no 'homes-for-life' and all tenant status reviewed on annual basis; low-vacancy homes to be reallocated to those in need.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, this is ridiculous. There is no reason a single person in public housing should get to keep a 3-bedroom place if they aren't paying for it. Sorry, but when taxpayers are footing the bill for you, you don't get a whole lot of choice. He can seriously shove the sob story about having grown up in that house, too. I don't even remember off the top of my head how many times I've moved in my life. Shit happens, people move, you'll live.

I really don't see the logic in letting people keep a bigger place than they need, when it's being paid for by taxpayers and there's a real shortage of sufficiently-sized residences for others. Make 'em move.

 

[Jadzia]

Do you think such people should be moved out of such under-occupied houses?

I think the most compassionate things is to apply the principle of least disruption.

- He can stay in the house for as long as he wants to.
- If he chooses to move, he'll be allocated a house suitably sized for a single person.

Some of the darkest chapters in the history of my world involve the forced relocation of a small group of people to satisfy the demands on a large one.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Do you think such people should be moved out of such under-occupied houses?

I think the most compassionate things is to apply the principle of least disruption.

- He can stay in the house for as long as he wants to.
- If he chooses to move, he'll be allocated a house suitably sized for a single person.

Some of the darkest chapters in the history of my world involve the forced relocation of a small group of people to satisfy the demands on a large one.

It's posts like this that help me understand the conservative mindset that taxpayers really shouldn't house or feed anyone.

There are only so many houses to go around, and there are people who actually need them, but in order to be "compassionate" we'll let someone stay in a 3-bedroom that's much more home than he needs? Where's the "compassion" for the families who need a 3-bedroom but can't get one because of guys like him? Don't you think this is "disruptive" to them?

 

[HoneyBLilly]

Can I move to the UK or Australia?

I may not pay rent now that we bought a house but our rent for our two bedroom apartment was $1150 a month.

I still have nightmares of getting the 1,2,3, pay or leave thing we would get if we didn't pay the rent on time.

Granted times aren't like that now, but still.


Anyways, I would say they should move if they want to but if they don't then there's no point in it.
The Picard statement is perfect for this situation.

 

[Jadzia]

Where's the "compassion" for the families who need a 3-bedroom but can't get one because of guys like him? Don't you think this is "disruptive" to them?

Disruption is with unwanted changes, not when things stay the same. I dislike the idea of people being pushed/kicked around in the name of optimisation.

The house still exists no matter who lives there, so the cost to taxpayers doesn't change.

 

[ITL]

A friend of mine has five kids, and has a four bedroom council house. But now that four of the kids have grown up and left home, him, the missus and the remaining kid are going to be moved to a smaller place. And he's fine with that - he doesn't want a four bedroom house any more, and would rather see a family in there who needs it more than he does.

 

[An Officer]

If he's 83, he may not be as adaptable, physically and mentally as a younger person. He's in his twilight years, let him live out what is a difficult time in peace, rather than misery at the loss of his lifelong home. I believe a young family can cope with hardship far more easily than an OAP. The home will return to the state sooner rather than later in this case. There is a law to be obeyed, yes, and it makes sense, however in this situation, it would be following the letter rather than the spirit.

 

[Jadzia]

- He can stay in the house for as long as he wants to.

It's posts like this that help me understand the conservative mindset that taxpayers really shouldn't house or feed anyone.

What I forgot to add that may make my post misleading, is that "as long as he wants to" is on the assumption that he remains eligible for council housing. The man in the OP obviously does.

Income should determine rent, so there should be a tipping point where a private tenancy rent becomes cheaper than rent for a council house. Beyond that tipping point there will be incentive to move, or to purchase the council house.

For those who start earning lots of money, but choose not to move and not purchase the house, the council will be making a profit.

There can be a cap on it too, so the council doesn't charge extortionate amounts to people who get a high income. The cap should be similar to (but a bit more than) what a private tenancy rent would be for that house.

 

[JoeZhang]

Yeah, this is ridiculous. There is no reason a single person in public housing should get to keep a 3-bedroom place if they aren't paying for it. Sorry, but when taxpayers are footing the bill for you, you don't get a whole lot of choice. He can seriously shove the sob story about having grown up in that house, too. I don't even remember off the top of my head how many times I've moved in my life. Shit happens, people move, you'll live.

I really don't see the logic in letting people keep a bigger place than they need, when it's being paid for by taxpayers and there's a real shortage of sufficiently-sized residences for others. Make 'em move.

Where does it say that in the story? Social housing in the UK does not equal the tax-payer paying for you.

What I forgot to add that may make my post misleading, is that "as long as he wants to" is on the assumption that he remains eligible for council housing. The man in the OP obviously does.

Once you are in social housing (there is very little 'council housing' left in the UK), the only eligibility I am aware of is that you pay your rent on time.

or to purchase the council house.

But that reduces the stock increasing pressure on what remains.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, this is ridiculous. There is no reason a single person in public housing should get to keep a 3-bedroom place if they aren't paying for it. Sorry, but when taxpayers are footing the bill for you, you don't get a whole lot of choice. He can seriously shove the sob story about having grown up in that house, too. I don't even remember off the top of my head how many times I've moved in my life. Shit happens, people move, you'll live.

I really don't see the logic in letting people keep a bigger place than they need, when it's being paid for by taxpayers and there's a real shortage of sufficiently-sized residences for others. Make 'em move.

Where does it say that in the story? Social housing in the UK does not equal the tax-payer paying for you.

It doesn't? Then I would like to be enlightened on how it works. The phrase "public housing," to me, means "I live in a residence where taxpayers are paying some or all of my rent."

 

[JoeZhang]

In an ideal world, I'd hope there'd be enough housing to help everyone. But as this unrealistic and if needs changing/prioritising, I'd opt for: homeless, ex-military and key low-pay public workers (nurses, police, etc) as priorities; no 'homes-for-life' and all tenant status reviewed on annual basis; low-vacancy homes to be reallocated to those in need.

What is low-paid about policing? You can argue that the job doesn't pay enough relative to the demands but against the rest of the population, there isn't anything about policing that resembles the profile of a low-paid worker.

 

[JoeZhang]

It doesn't? Then I would like to be enlightened on how it works. The phrase "public housing," to me, means "I live in a residence where taxpayers are paying some or all of my rent."

Nope - you can live in social housing and pay all of your own rent. A sizeable percentage of people in social housing are getting some or all of their rent paid by govt support but equally many people are simply paying the lot themselves.

 

[Jadzia]

or to purchase the council house.

But that reduces the stock increasing pressure on what remains.

To replenish their stock, the council could buy houses with the money they make from those who buy the council houses. It's just a case of making sure the numbers balance.

Once you are in social housing (there is very little 'council housing' left in the UK), the only eligibility I am aware of is that you pay your rent on time.

Well that may need adjusting too. For example, owning another house should make a person ineligible.

 

[JoeZhang]

To replenish their stock, the council could buy houses with the money they make from those who buy the council houses.

Only 40% of social housing is now owned by councils, and there is generally a mismatch between the price of old stock and what they would have to pay for new. There is already a mismatch in the area because of the wave of tenant buyouts that occured in the 1980s - often for the purposes of flipping. Moreover, the conservatives changed the law so that councils can not spend rent money or other funds on building new houses.

 

[Jadzia]

there is generally a mismatch between the price of old stock and what they would have to pay for new.

This will need adjusting too. Residents shouldn't be able to make a profit from the system by going on to sell the house for considerably more than they paid the council for it. The cost to buy the house from the council should be the rated value of it, if sold privately.

Also the council shouldn't have to buy newly built properties. They should be free to buy anything that's up for sale at a reasonable price.

This combination will ensure that there will be no price mismatch between selling old stock and buying new stock.

~~

The trouble with the government subsidizing rent is that taxpayers end up paying to a private organisation (the owner of the house). That money is gone from the public purse.

With my system, the council wouldn't be subsidizing anything. Public money would remain with the council, rather than going to a private organisation, so taxpayers would be better off.