Vocal Voices

I see The Housing Association are furious with respect to this suggestion " Right to Buy" their properties,Have any of you seen the mammoth obscene salaries those at the top are pocketing?

I work for a housing association Kate. We are a charity - none of our top bosses are on massive salaries. Everything isn't always about money and the "fat cat salaries" you know.

We are in the middle of an affordable housing crisis. To sell off stock is a ridiculous idea. Its been done before - hence the fact that there is a housing crisis now! When our local authority advertise a property as available they can have up to 50 people bidding on it. And that's in a relatively rural area. The number of people applying for any one property in a city location can be in the thousands.

Its one thing to sell off stock in big cities where there is the scope to continue building but to sell off stock in rural areas (where the HA I work for provides housing) is a mad idea. Once these houses are sold where exactly are the new ones supposed to be built. Brown field sites have been built on - can you imagine the uproar if we start building on green belt land. And in the Peak District National Park. But what other option would there be - local people need houses to live in.

I had pretty much decided how I was voting - I find it maddening that no one party is in power long enough to really make a change so therefore I had decided that maybe the best solution was to keep the same party in to at least make a difference during their term. This has now really made me rethink.

One example.

We have recently built 8 homes in a small village. All have been (and only ever will be) allocated to local people who have a 10 year connection to that village. Four are only available for rent and four are available for shared ownership.

It has taken us 8 years to get to the point of first doing the housing needs survey to now finishing the houses and have people moving in. First it was the NIMBYs who decided to start a village green petition (despite the fact that it was a field on the outskirts of the village and the village green was a completely different site in the village). Then it took ages for planning (this village is in the National Park).

We are able to control who goes in these houses - the local connection is key. If these houses are sold in full to their residents they will eventually be sold on again either as second homes or to someone who has never lived in the village in their life. What happens to the young families who want to stay in the village they grew up in, to the elderly person who wants to downsize from their four bedroom home to a purpose built two bedroom bungalow or to the daughter that wants to move back to the village to be closer to her elderly parents? They will, yet again, have been priced out of the market.

And we won't be able to build more homes as there is no suitable sites in the village and of course, those that opposed it the first time will quite rightly be able to say that last time we built we said that they would only be for local people but now have been sold off to "incomers".

Agreeing with you 100% Debih x

This, of course, has very little to do with affordable housing and everything to do with unlocking capital value in the market. By forcing the sale of properties at discounted rates, there is a huge influx of cash into the population when they sell on. This drives the economy and gives a sudden burp of economic activity which looks good.

The impact to communities and those who need to get on the first rung of the ladder is huge though. A case of short termism if ever there was one. Then again, don't think it's only the Tories. Labour in Scotland went mad with this and wanted to force this into privately held properties, estates etc... Fortunately they failed but once the genie is out of the bottle, it's pretty hard to stuff it back in and you can always rely on Labour to turn an issue into a crisis....

As for the NIMBY's, of course they are only going to sell their properties on to someone in the village and not to some incomer who can afford to give them over market value.....

The last thing this country needs is more privately owned housing, what it really needs is a more plentiful supply of homes to rent at reasonable prices.

At the present there are only two meaningful sources of homes to rent at affordable prices for the majority and they are Housing Associations and Councils. Property developers and property "investors" will not touch such schemes as the profit is not there, hence the explosion in the buy-to-let market.

The housing market is way out of kilter and the only way to bring it back will be a forced realignment backed by the law and one which brings in rent caps on BTL properties. I can't see any political party having the guts to go that way.

Jane Ashcroft Anchor Housing. Salary£332,000 a year. Plus perks..modern detached home purchased in 2005 for £750.000
David Bennet Sanctuary Group. £314,000 a year plus perks. Detached farmhouse in Herefordshirebought for £295,000 in2003
Simon Dow Guinness partnerships £264,000 a year plus perks. Bought property in 2003 valued approv£750,000
Darrel Mercer A2Dominian Group £247,000 a year plus perks. Five bedroom ex semi detached town house bought in2005 for £732,000 in 2006.all furious at the thought of The right to buy.
Just four poverty stricken Association Bosses screaming Blue Murder at The Right To Buy.
One of there high earners is renting out their second property.

I actually think it's irrelevant what they are earning.

When it boils down to it it's what people can afford and what selling the housing stock actually means.

We can quote what we like when it comes yo earnings. Dioes the queen earn what she gets no. Does any politician earn what they get - no.

People earn big salaries - be it right or be it wrong - it's irrelevant in one respect.

What they earn means nothing to the people on the ground!

But the selling off of housing stock is a no no irrelevant of what anyone eatns.

I hear what you are saying, Debih, and you are not wrong. But the other side of the coin is that these companies have taken on charitable status in order to reduce costs and make use of the other benefits that status provides. It is then a bit rich and quite an insult, as Kate says, for them to pay management salaries greater than that of the PM.

Workingman wrote:I hear what you are saying, Debih, and you are not wrong. But the other side of the coin is that these companies have taken on charitable status in order to reduce costs and make use of the other benefits that status provides. It is then a bit rich and quite an insult, as Kate says, for them to pay management salaries greater than that of the PM.

And the same thing is happening with the NHS fat cats. "Daily Wail today". Sickening, particularly when they are failing disgracefully . And this happened with the police.. Resigning, getting a golden handshake, fat pension then re joining the force a couple of months later. The country is crippled by crooks.