Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by colacao17, Jan 23, 2020.
actually, a lot of homeless people DO have jobs. But don't earn enough to pay rent
In some circumstances, but in many circumstances, no, the house is the first thing to go.
Many rough sleepers still hang on to health, job, and car.etc.
In the winter shelters we have a steady stream of individuals who have been living in their cars for months, but end up with hypothermia, bronchitis, etc in the winter.
This has not in any way decreased the amount of housing stock.
These buildings still exist, and still have people living in them
In fact, many are likely to have more people living in them than they would if they were still council housing.
Which is a different manifestation of the same root cause.
This is fraud, as the principle behind these apps is that it should be a reciprocal arrangement, you stay for free in one country, you host for free in your own country. The abuse of these apps is one reason some have closed down, and some guests have been arrested and convicted, and of course, once they have a criminal record, they are placing themselves in a much harder cataogry to rehouse.
In some areas. Here we have the opposite problem, more charities set up to help men, nowhere to place women, particularly professional working women.
Absolutely. When I hear people bemoaning the lack of social mobility in this country I often wish I could introduce them to some of the formally rich, privileged and successful people I meet sleeping rough on the street.
We need more accommodation.
As I've said in other threads, fewer cars in cities, fewer car parks and parking spaces needed, means more space freed up, both for reopening up green spaces, and more accommodation built.
Nevertheless, the change in the law has made what was already a difficult issue to solve even harder. With the result that more ex-prisoners leave prison with nowhere to go and often end up re-offending even if they were planning on going straight. A double whammy - more homeless and more offenders.
There's also the issue that the british are more resistant than the europeans to the idea of living in flats. Houses are far more wasteful in terms of land occupation, meaning a larger area and hence more infrastructure (roads and transport especially) is needed to accommodate a similar number of people.
But council houses were meant to be homes for people who could not afford to buy their own homes. The fact that, when sold, they were not replaced by building more council houses has added to (if not been instrumental in creating) the current situation. People who cannot afford to buy or to rent privately (which is often more expensive than council housing for less quality) end up homeless.
I disagree with your first sentence as your last one indicates that they were for people who for whatever reason could not rent privately, for many of whom buying a property was never on the cards.
So if I amend the first sentence to
you'll agree with me?
I don't think it affects the point I was making.
The lack of council houses built to replace those sold under 'right to buy' has resulted in more people homeless.
My point was council property was not for people who could not afford to buy but for those who for whatever reason could not afford to rent privately.
It was a safety net, albeit a long term one. Often council property was nothing to aspire to and it was not as comfortable or as well maintained as one might think... Hence RTB which slashed council maintenance costs, unsaleable property was later passed to HA's funded by the the Housing Corp (different funding stream as Councils were considered ill equipped and inefficient in terms of long term maintenance issues). Hindsight is a wonderful thing but actually we need to look beyond the rose tinted specs of the past, Council accommodation had many problems before they were sold off as anyone who had lived in them would be all too well aware.
I would add that rent arrears was still common in council accommodation as was addiction, criminality, vandalism, and all manner of social ills. Housing is an issue but is not a cure all. Sociologists talked of an underclass and that has never been fully dealt with.
but selling them off made absolutely no difference what so ever to the number of places to live that exist. In many cases they still have the same people living in them. In other cases they still are housing people who would no be able to afford accommodation that was not ex council. In our area, around 10% of accommodation on council estates is private, mostly owner occupied. If those people did not live on the council estates, where would they live? If they had bought or rented a different home else where, where would the current occupants of that home live?
There are no homes in this cost bracket standing empty!
We have a certain number of households, and a certain number of homes. The number of homes is too small for the number of households. -How ever it is configured.