Affordable or not? (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Affordable or not?
11:25am Tuesday 4th September 2012 in Letters By Readers' letters
WE CAN’T afford affordable homes If we could control market forces experts would have brought the current recession to an abrupt end. Given that we can’t tinker with one aspect of the economy without affecting another, why do our council leaders continue to poke their noses into the sphere of house building in this city?
The notion of ‘affordable homes’ is as noble and altruistic as the objectives of the original patrons of the Joseph Rowntree Trust. But it is also as shallow and unrealistic as the idea that the future of the property market lies in public ownership.
Loose talk of young people being ‘forced’ to rent properties is alarmist. The truth is that many of today’s youngsters have unrealistic expectations.
They need to do what many of us did years ago and work patiently towards the ownership of bricks and mortar later in life.
Surely it’s time to listen to experts such as Paul Cordock and Matthew Laverack, who have been telling us for some time now that unless we sweep away cheap housing targets in this city we will deter the private investment we need in the housing market to get it moving again.
Allan Charlesworth, Old Earswick, York.
• ONCE again Coun Tracey Simpson Laing presumes to know what we developers are thinking (Letters, September 1).
She claims developers believe that pepper-potting affordable houses does not devalue neighbouring homes. This is utterly ludicrous. Does she think we also believe in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy?
Furthermore, her reference to affordable housing legislation being brought in by a Conservative government in 1992 is erroneous.
She should know that legislation was aimed at providing 100 per cent affordable schemes in rural areas on exceptional sites where free market development would not normally be allowed.
The current set of blackmail demands which require private builders to hand over, at a loss, a portion of their product to a Registered Social Landlord, is entirely the brainchild of New Labour, which took over a thriving economy in 1997 but left it in tatters 13 years later.
I am indeed lobbying the coalition government to reverse those disastrous policies which have done so much damage to the building industry.
John Jones, Former housebuilder, Sand Hutton, York.
Comments(18)
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:44pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Here they are:-
29 Aug : John Jones
30 Aug : Tony Feetenby
01 Sept ; John Reeves, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, Dennis Barton, Geoff Robb and Matthew Laverack
04 Sept : Allan Charlesworth and John Jones
Isn't it time that the Council and Coun Simpson-Laing listened to the majority ?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:44pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Here they are:-
29 Aug : John Jones
30 Aug : Tony Feetenby
01 Sept ; John Reeves, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, Dennis Barton, Geoff Robb and Matthew Laverack
04 Sept : Allan Charlesworth and John Jones
Isn't it time that the Council and Coun Simpson-Laing listened to the majority ?
Omega Point
says...
12:57pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Well Allan, how much did houses cost in relation to the average wage in your day?.
Jezreel
says...
2:11pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:But Matthew, why don't you tell the readers that most of these letters are written by you? They are then sent to the Press under the name of one of your mates to make it look as if people are fired up about the planning laws interfering with your income. In reality it is a matter of total indifference to most of us.
The above two letters bring the total published in the Press in the last seven days to nine (9), with only one supporting the council's position, and guess who that was from ?
Here they are:-
29 Aug : John Jones
30 Aug : Tony Feetenby
01 Sept ; John Reeves, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, Dennis Barton, Geoff Robb and Matthew Laverack
04 Sept : Allan Charlesworth and John Jones
Isn't it time that the Council and Coun Simpson-Laing listened to the majority ?
Moreover the 3 postings (above) by The Black Fingernail are also by you.
It's a one man band.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:55pm Tue 4 Sep 12
For the last time, I AM NOT MATTHEW LAVERACK either !
sheps lad
says...
3:01pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Omega Point wrote:If I remember correctly my monthly mortgage payment was equal to one weeks take home pay. My wifes earnings were not allowed into the equation.. My take home pay was £15-9s-6p and the house cost £2,400.
"They need to do what many of us did years ago and work patiently towards the ownership of bricks and mortar later in life.
Well Allan, how much did houses cost in relation to the average wage in your day?.
Zetkin
says...
3:33pm Tue 4 Sep 12
That's been blown out of the water since the 1980s with both parties being committed to destroying council housing.
Not because we can't afford it - we certainly can - but because they're both in thrall to the developers and privatisers.
Housing in Britain is in a deepening crisis. If builders really can't afford to build, they should sign their businesses over to the state which in turn should use the banks it controls to provide the funds to start a massive programme of building to ensure everyone has good housing at a price they can afford.
roadwars
says...
8:20pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:It seems like there are only 9 people in York that are really bothered, 8 of them are probably builders or ex-builders, yet we have to put up with the same whinge every few days in the letters pages.
The above two letters bring the total published in the Press in the last seven days to nine (9), with only one supporting the council's position, and guess who that was from ?
Here they are:-
29 Aug : John Jones
30 Aug : Tony Feetenby
01 Sept ; John Reeves, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, Dennis Barton, Geoff Robb and Matthew Laverack
04 Sept : Allan Charlesworth and John Jones
Isn't it time that the Council and Coun Simpson-Laing listened to the majority ?
At least the other usual subject of Car v's Bicycle is sometimes amusing....
Will.I.Aint
says...
9:42pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Omega Point
says...
10:27pm Tue 4 Sep 12
sheps lad wrote:About right for decades, approx three-half times average wage. Now it is much more.
Omega Point wrote: "They need to do what many of us did years ago and work patiently towards the ownership of bricks and mortar later in life. Well Allan, how much did houses cost in relation to the average wage in your day?.If I remember correctly my monthly mortgage payment was equal to one weeks take home pay. My wifes earnings were not allowed into the equation.. My take home pay was £15-9s-6p and the house cost £2,400.
Add to that the tax relief on the interest of a mortgage (MIRAS), now gone and for those who did get a degree, no student debts.
It is much harde to get on the ladder now
Mr Trellis
says...
5:52am Wed 5 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
8:13pm Wed 5 Sep 12
Mr Trellis wrote:You are not alone, Mr Trellis. This is exactly why housebuilding in York has almost ground to a halt.
I was a developer I built good houses I reached the point that I would have to build affordable homes. I quit!. Does that sum up the debate
I hope that you make your views known to your local councillor, or better still, why not wrote or email Coun Simpson-Laing - her council email address is :-
cllr.tsimpson-laing@
york.gov.uk
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
8:15pm Wed 5 Sep 12
The government is planning to introduce an 'affordable housing holiday' for developers as part of a major stimulus package intended to kick-start house building to be announced tomorrow.
Looks like we were right, and Coun Simpson-Laing was wrong !
jimmy120883
says...
9:09pm Wed 5 Sep 12
The holiday, which could last between a year and three years, would enable developers to drop planning obligations to build affordable housing to make schemes viable and boost housing starts.
Conservative ministers are locked in discussions with their Liberal Democrat counterparts over the details of the move which could see the Treasury provide hundreds of millions of pounds to pay for the replacement of around 20,000 affordable homes that would be lost as a result.
If it goes ahead, the plan would impact on the government’s £1.8 billion affordable homes programme.
Under section 106 agreements developers are bound to deliver community benefits, infrastructure and affordable housing alongside housing for market sale.
The Treasury is thought to have identified cash from departmental underspends that could be used to fund the replacement homes. Sources suggested the final figure, which is still being negotiated could be between £200 million and £800 million.
This could see between 10,000 and 30,000 affordable homes being built, meaning potentially more affordable homes than originally funded by the government.
To date, the coalition has said it would provide £10 billion of government guarantees for housing, which would not appear on the government’s balance sheet, but has shied away from committing to spending money.
As part of the planned announcement tomorrow, there will be an underwriting of housing association bonds to reduce the cost of finance for developing landlords.
There is also expected to be an expansion of the New Buy scheme, which supports first-time buyers, and commitments to releasing more land for development.
Sources emphasised that the section 106 plans were still being negotiated and were subject to the outcome of internal coalition wrangles about building on green belt land.
The government has recently announced a consultation on section 106 agreements. Under its plans developers would be able to renegotiate agreements signed before April 2010 if they are preventing projects from going ahead.
The move follows on from the government-commissio
ned Montague Review last month.
As revealed by Inside Housing, Montague recommended the relaxation of section 106 rules so that affordable housing could be replaced with private rented homes to encourage institutional investment in the sector.
The Treasury declined to comment on whether it would be funding affordable housing
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:24am Thu 6 Sep 12
Are you a housing officer at the Council, or work for a housing association ?
Apart from repeating the article, are you trying to make a point here ?
jimmy120883
says...
12:57am Thu 6 Sep 12
You mentioned the article and i thought id let people have the chance to read it for them selves.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
9:16am Thu 6 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel says...
11:59am Tue 4 Sep 12
At one time it was a handful of property development professionals who wrote these letters, but now they come from others who are not from the industry. York residents are no longer taken in by the left wing politicians who's flawed policies have failed.
It's time that the lying, cheating and patronising stopped. The electorate are telling the Council to sort this out, and those responsible for the mistakes and damage, like Coun Simpson-Laing should apologise, admit their poor judgement, and resign.