Later in the program the presenter says coyly what we need is 'cheap money' rather than government money , what is cheap money ? I presume he is saying 'government backed' bank loans , which is basically sub-prime credit. Private companies set interest rates according to perceived risk , people without jobs often do not have a realistic plan for repayment, if the house to be repaired is not owned by the borrower who is money to be leant to ; if tenants take on the debt to improve a council owned house how can that be right ?
The issue of finance for housing was not covered , towards the end the presenter talks about an extra 50 million from the government but makes no attempt to inform the viewer about where this money comes from or goes to and what conditions are attached, I'm sure viewers would be interested in the funding of housing associations and how and where government money is dealt out.
The presenter says 'we can't wait for the Gov or councils to solve this problem' ...... why should they be let off the hook so easily - It is entirely the councils job to solve this problem, the councils allowed whole streets to fall into decay or soldthem off to developers who just sit on them waiting to build another shopping mall. These councils are judging the are to be unworthy of investment essentially because of the lack of jobs.
I particularly liked Keith House's comment that 35% of the 10,000 new houses developers will build in Eastleigh will be 'affordable'.
ReplyDeleteSo why build 6,500 unaffordable ones then?
Of course that's not what he means at all. Here 'affordable' is a euphemism for 'subsidised'.
It is the government that will subsidise and/or underwrite the sale of 'affordable' properties - the delvelopers will not be required to sell of housing cheap.
This interference in the market - far from being an attempt to 'help' low waged or FTBs - is all about deliberately keeping houses overpriced and 'unaffordable'.
Estate Agent Today: Homes bought under MIG scheme 'could devalue overnight'
ReplyDelete"Properties sold to first-time buyers under the Government’s 95% mortgage indemnity guarantee scheme could instantly depreciate in value, the RICS has warned.
The RICS says it is concerned that demand for homes within the scheme could artificially put up their prices.
David Dalby, residential director at RICS, said valuers will need to look at properties outside the scheme and take their prices into account.
He said: “There is a potential issue for lenders and buyers in that, as this scheme is only available for new-build property, any subsequent purchaser would not be able to take advantage of it.
“Unless similar loans come on to the market for second-hand homes, there may be an instant depreciation in value the day after purchase.”
Interesting to note that some states in the USA are actually dropping house prices in order to get the market going again. Discounts of 30-50% are having an effect. Its a pity that the banks are tied up with saving money in case or when the government tells them to hand it over to the Eurozone!!! The scandal of empty properties is an age old problem that doesnt seem to go away even when we are in the supposed 'good times'. I recall a scheme some 25+ years ago where a local authority could take over a long vacated property. Wonder what happened to that?
ReplyDelete