Social Housing Dropped In Favour Of New Lending Policy

Taxes

Taxes (Photo credit: Tax Credits)

Whenever l read a post that says – We are here to improve or provide better ways to help you! My alarm bell’s say be careful look at the real picture at what they are not saying, not what they are!

Well this article says be careful !

Ministers are studying plans to boost house building by lending publicly owned land to developers and relaxing requirements for building schemes to include social housing. The recommendations are expected to be made in a report by Sir Adrian Montague. Under the changes, the government and local authorities would “invest” land they own with private developers or housing associations, which say they can raise money to build homes but cannot afford to buy land as well. The state would be repaid when the completed developments were sold to institutions such as pension funds, which have indicated they want steady income from rents but cannot take the risk of development or wait for their pay-back during the building phase. To further encourage developers, councils could be urged to relax requirements for developers to build social as well as private housing; in return, they would have to agree that the rented homes could not be sold privately for a minimum period.

So what is the real story and how is it hidden from our view, well simply it is too good to be true! Also it is the tax payer once again that will pay for both giving the land owned by them and also funding the building costs.

Let us cover the first part giving the developer’s land, they have aptly called,lending them publicly owned land! That is “give” for no payment then adding to include social housing, as a way to placate us. The fact it is given        ” free and gratis” does not really get too much of a mention. They go onto say we will invest [give] land to private developers and or housing associations, mention of private sets the antennae really ringing. Anything private or PFi says profit and the only reason this government would give land to private developers,is profit for them and not the taxpayer!

The next part is even better it goes onto say that once they are built and sold for rental to pension funds that have indicated they want a steady income! Again more private companies that invested taxpayers hard earned money into pension funds and then using various investments, into commercial managed property portfolios,lost it all and had to reduce people’s pensions. Does anyone remember the 1980’s Serp‘s ” State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme” well this was replaced by ” State Second Pension” but very few people realise it was used for paying unemployment benefit and had to be replaced.

So l see this as ” History Repeating  itself as private companies giving to private companies means nothing for the taxpayer but profits for the developer, pension funds and rental companies.

So who takes the risk? The taxpayer not the government as they will get paid back when the development is completed, as they do not want to take the risk!

So even the risk is to be taken by the taxpayer and the profit is to be taken by the private companies. So this is a no risk no payment and good return for this governments ” Cash for Contracts” supporters!

#business-and-economy, #housing-association, #housing-benefit, #leasehold-estate, #pension, #private-rented-sector, #property, #public-housing

” RICH TENANTS FACE EVICTION”

Resident with Grant Shapps

Resident with Grant Shapps (Photo credit: Hightown Praetorian)

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, is to give details of a “pay-to-stay scheme” under which wealthier social housing tenants will lose all or most of their rent subsidies. The aim is to release scarce social housing for the four million people on waiting lists. Tens of thousands of council tenants with an income of more than £60,000 could be evicted or have to pay more rent. The Times pictures the RMT’s Bob Crow, who they say falls into this bracket. The Telegraph points out that middle income workers such as teachers and police officers could also be forced to pay full market rates.

So what is view on this proposal?

 

#bob-crow, #council-house, #daily-telegraph, #department-for-communities-and-local-government, #grant-shapps, #leasehold-estate, #public-housing, #times