The Residents' Society of Mayfair & St. James's would be aghast.
What makes you think anyone lives there to be a resident. Half the are was bought by dodgy money by people who rarely stay there. It's just the rich person's version of Holiday Homes which harm the likes of Cornwall
As for the OP - the properties need looking after so rather than making subterranean swimming pools and garages they could make servant quarters instead
Whilst the Queen is exercising her Corgi's in the palace grounds, outside in Green Park, the new incoming "Benefits on Berkeley Square" residents are walking their Staffies.
No one is going to touch housing related problems with a 10 foot clown pole, a third of mps have secondry income from the property sector (where they have themselves declared a source of income via renting property) and the number is rising consecutively year on year
A fair chunk of those are conservative mps, however labour don't get off so lightly either, my opinion is the problem goes beyond party politics and both sides are responsible in their failings to do anything about it
Its a free market economy. Subsidised housing costs a lot of money to maintain and private ownership means the costs are borne by the owners instead. Of we stopped letting a 1/3 of a million immigrants in each year that need housing we wouldn't be short of housing. New builds can't keep up. That's why there is pressure on housing.
Rent control caps. Rent would be the same across all of London. A 2 bed flat in Tower Hamlets or the Aylesbury Estate or Southwark would be the same as in Mayfair, Chelsea, Notting Hill etc.
This is needed to combat the shortage of affordable homes.
That's happening, in effect. The benefits cap will either stop rents rising because of a lack of tenants, or will push existing tenants out of expensive districts. The latter is what will happen.
You are right. Thank you for that. Not being from London I would not have known this.
I honestly wouldn't expect anyone from outside London to know that; I didn't realise the extent of it before I lived here. It just makes the subject of the thread a bit daft. Even the back of Buckingham Palace looks out over some really shabby-looking buildings.
The snp have the right idea, they are building 12,000 council houses a year [it was 20,000 until the tory cuts] they are targeted in councils with the highest waiting lists and fewer properties.
The main problem with the home counties is that the tory run councils refuse to built social housing because they know the tenants will not vote tory! They want to keep the poor out.
Errr.... No they're not.
Total houses completed in Scotland last financial year was 15,473 of those 4,221 were social housing of all flavours.
Looking at the data from here there's never been anywhere near 20,000 social homes built in a financial year, no mater who's been in power.
What they did pledge was to build 30,000 new homes over the lifetime of the Parliament, which means they'll need to up completions by about 40% per annum to get anywhere near that.
OP. What makes you think that homes in Mayfair are rented and not owner occupied? How do you propose to fund the compulsory purchase of these buildings? Do you know what land prices are in central London? Don't you think you might get more bang for your buck to create social housing in areas where land prices are lower. Or are you advocating a full command economy - they always work so well.
Perhaps a more realistic line to take to meet your aims, would be to prevent multiple home ownership and the secondary sale/purchase of social housing.
So many of the former council houses I know of that were sold to their occupiers in the 80's were later sold as buy to let jobbies.
I used to live in Covent Garden in a block of flats that was a mixture of social housing and private owners. That would be seen as a wealthy area, but not as expensive as Mayfair.
Multiple choice question.
Did the people in social housing think:
A) I have fallen on my feet here, aren't I lucky to be living rent free/low rent for a central location which other people have paid a lot of money for
Or
I have fallen on my feet here, aren't I lucky to be living rent free/low rent etc, but I will turn it into a slum anyway.
Comments
As for the OP - the properties need looking after so rather than making subterranean swimming pools and garages they could make servant quarters instead
...that you're allowed to drive home from half-cut, naturally.
Especially if you're a learner driver.
or your chauffeur is. Just to make it equal
In a vintage car?
Whilst the Queen is exercising her Corgi's in the palace grounds, outside in Green Park, the new incoming "Benefits on Berkeley Square" residents are walking their Staffies.
Awwwww, how sweet!
certainly is
there is a surprisingly large number of whinging socialists on DS
A fair chunk of those are conservative mps, however labour don't get off so lightly either, my opinion is the problem goes beyond party politics and both sides are responsible in their failings to do anything about it
And of course it's massively rare to see a right winger moaning about anything here... ;-)
That's happening, in effect. The benefits cap will either stop rents rising because of a lack of tenants, or will push existing tenants out of expensive districts. The latter is what will happen.
I mentioned about the social housing in Mayfair and every other part of London upthread. Perhaps the thread is populated by non-London posters.
You are right. Thank you for that. Not being from London I would not have known this.
I honestly wouldn't expect anyone from outside London to know that; I didn't realise the extent of it before I lived here. It just makes the subject of the thread a bit daft. Even the back of Buckingham Palace looks out over some really shabby-looking buildings.
Because neither classes like the other side anyway
This post is tongue in cheek!!!
Errr.... No they're not.
Total houses completed in Scotland last financial year was 15,473 of those 4,221 were social housing of all flavours.
Looking at the data from here there's never been anywhere near 20,000 social homes built in a financial year, no mater who's been in power.
What they did pledge was to build 30,000 new homes over the lifetime of the Parliament, which means they'll need to up completions by about 40% per annum to get anywhere near that.
Are those the ones without windows?
OP. What makes you think that homes in Mayfair are rented and not owner occupied? How do you propose to fund the compulsory purchase of these buildings? Do you know what land prices are in central London? Don't you think you might get more bang for your buck to create social housing in areas where land prices are lower. Or are you advocating a full command economy - they always work so well.
Perhaps a more realistic line to take to meet your aims, would be to prevent multiple home ownership and the secondary sale/purchase of social housing.
So many of the former council houses I know of that were sold to their occupiers in the 80's were later sold as buy to let jobbies.
Multiple choice question.
Did the people in social housing think:
A) I have fallen on my feet here, aren't I lucky to be living rent free/low rent for a central location which other people have paid a lot of money for
Or
Unfortunately it was the latter.