I don't think that's what they are talking about.
This isn't councils paying private landlords to house tenants.

This is about council-owned properties. They don't cost high rents regardless of where they are, because the councils own them. This is about selling property that might be worth shitloads because of its location and using the money to build or buy more property in cheaper areas.

Like many of these ideas, it has some merit, but some really fucking stupid aspects, too.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, 3 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

As Chompy argued, in principle selling 1 house in street A to build 4 in Street B is a good idea
it's just that Street A is in a nice area, but Street B is 50 miles away and in the fucking horrendous place and anyone living there will be forever condemned to a shit life with no prospects because although they are happy to build a million flats on Street B, they aren't willing to provide enough schools, hospitals or general transport infrastructure to support Street B.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

Fuck 'em, they should be happy they aren't left out on the street

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:38, Reply)

Plus street A no longer has any element of social structure or variation
as everybody living on it is a fucking stockbroker.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

street A will have a mixture of middle class people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds
is what you meant to say
( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:43, Reply)

Sorry, yeah.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:45, Reply)

See Al, right here is a sensible and well thought out response
very different to your mung bean spitting tirade of frothy middle class guilt.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

I don't really see the stupid aspects
mainly because i don't really believe there is a pure reason why two identical properties in the same town can have a 50% price difference.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

Location innit
If you are going to get stabbed everyday outside one house then it will be less attractive to a buyer.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:40, Reply)

It's not a matter of faith as to whether or not houses have a price difference
it simply "is".
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:41, Reply)

Too many estate agents are non-believers, that's all.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:42, Reply)

No pure reason except for the fact that it's demonstrably true in almost every single town in the UK?

The "fucking stupid" aspects are the ones Al mentions above. You can't achieve what you're talking about by moving someone around the corner, it would be miles away. Different schools, no social mix any more, etc, etc. It would work if you were selling a property that was valuable to build something literally round the corner in the same area, but we tried that 50 years ago. Sell housing stock to build inner-city high rises. they definitely worked absolutely brilliantly and there's been no problems at all assoicated with that, wouldn't you agree?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:44, Reply)

I know it's true, but I think it's a big load of bollocks. My current flat and my old flat have a £20,000 difference.
And they're identical and too close to even smoke a fag between the two.

My assumptions on how it would work if it was managed well would be something like this.
Sell houses on street A as they're empty in expensive streets. Do them up a little sell them for a profit
Spend that building new houses on vacant land or derelict sites B.
Now the council has a larger stock of housing but with the same overall value. Keep doing that with the assumption that selling at a profit to build more stock is the way you'll do it.
Eventually you have a large financial incentive to increase the house values of sites B, so refurbishing a school or playground in a bad area, subsidising bus routes street cleaning and policing in those areas starts making more economic sense.

But that means it'll have to be run correctly for years...
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:58, Reply)

Which we can't do. Because our political system has no incentive for longtermism.
And that still doesn't change the fact that it's retrospective - you're moving families from nice areas to shit areas with the promise that the area will get better in X years time.

moving people from a good area to a bad one will also most likely decrease the chances of stuff like the children doing well at school, thus perpetuating those family through multiple generations of poverty etc etc
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:02, Reply)

You're not moving people, you're waiting for the current occupiers to either die
or move out. And replacing them with new council tennants who are currently on a waiting list or in hostels or something.
If it was an eviction or relocation style thing I'd be dead against it.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:04, Reply)

It will turn into one, though.
Because there will be pressure for the results to be seen more quickly.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:06, Reply)

That is the thing.
Over 20 to 30 years you could change the face of the social housing in a council by proper property managment and smart manipulation of the market.
However they won't, because a council doesn't think on those timescales.
It's ridiculous as well because lets face it any councils property portfolio is probably their biggest asset if they were more flexible with it, they could make more money.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:10, Reply)