Given that the cost of housing is a big problem in this country, was looking at the Tesco thread and I realised that a young person living in a bedsit would be paying from 40% to 50% of their income in rent alone if they were working on the wages that Tesco pays, just as an example, I had this thought.
I discovered recently, after the misleading statements about subsidised social housing, that my local council was spending less on maintenance and management for social housing than they were gathering in rent, far less. They are creating a profit of about £56m a year from social housing.
I also discovered that they don’t get to keep this money.
So my idea is: Why not let the Local Councils keep the rent they collect from social housing, but earmark it for use only in social housing, add a proviso that they cannot lower rents, but must spend the money within a 3 year period, so money gained in 2012 must be spent by 2015.
This would give my Local Authority roughly £56m a year to spend on renovation, regeneration and buying properties to convert to social housing, whether they be derelict properties, ex-commercial or brown field sites etc, and if they needed more they could pool the money from a couple of years to create a very large amount to buy up expensive land if necessary.
Lastly, how about an incentive for the Councils. In 10 years, they can keep the profit they make from social housing to spend on other services within their boroughs. This would create an incentive for Councils to increase their social housing stock. The more homes they have in the future, the more profit they will make, the more they will be able to spend in their boroughs for the people that live there.
It will create more social housing and in the long run will allow people who live in a borough, to see an increase in services which they have paid for through their rent.
Anyone see any downsides to this proposal?