The rise of the middle age renter.

[Saisonator]

I am in two minds about social housing, I know it provides cheap housing for those on low wages. But it encourages the wrong type of state dependant immigrants, being housed and maintained at a great cost to us, both financially and socially.
London for example has an industry maintaining such people.

 

[BarnBrian]

I am in two minds about social housing, I know it provides cheap housing for those on low wages. But it encourages the wrong type of state dependant immigrants, being housed and maintained at a great cost to us, both financially and socially.
London for example has an industry maintaining such people.

So you don't want social housing, you don't want private landlords. I won't bother asking what your answer to the situation is, I think you just enjoy being disagreeable.

 

[marshbrewer]

Plenty of people round this way that pay higher rents than the mortgage repayments. So they would be able to pay a mortgage on the house, if the bank would lend to them.
I think people choosing to rent is a small minority, why would most people want to throw all that money into someone else’s nest egg?

Lots of people who rent wouldn't be able to buy because they wouldn't get a mortgage, either because they don't have a sufficient deposit (the higher resultant rents would keep them in this position longer), have an insufficient credit rating (higher rents would just make them poorer) or because their rent is mostly or totally paid by housing benefit.

Seriously, reducing market liquidity is not a good idea.

 

[Saisonator]

So you don't want social housing, you don't want private landlords. I won't bother asking what your answer to the situation is, I think you just enjoy being disagreeable.

I would go for social housing, because dependant people will need to be housed and hopefully council housing stock is cheaper.

 

[chewie]

Lots of people who rent wouldn't be able to buy because they wouldn't get a mortgage, either because they don't have a sufficient deposit (the higher resultant rents would keep them in this position longer), have an insufficient credit rating (higher rents would just make them poorer) or because their rent is mostly or totally paid by housing benefit.

It was this very situation that lead to the crash 10 years ago.....

 

[simon12]

[QUOTE="Ciaran12s, post: 755474, member: 18810"
A counter question, why should families not have the right to stability and security in their home?[/QUOTE]
They do you have the right to agree a tenancy on any terms you want. You just don't have the right to force terms on the landlord.

 

[Ken L]

I would go for social housing, because dependant people will need to be housed and hopefully council housing stock is cheaper.

Better still, make the "social housing" communal and have the residents work for their board.

 

[MyQul]

Better still, make the "social housing" communal and have the residents work for their board.

Better still - Workhouses! GET PICKIN THAT OAKUM!!!*




*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakum

 

[Ken L]

Better still - Workhouses! !!!

That's the ticket.

 

[BarnBrian]

Better still - Workhouses! GET PICKIN THAT OAKUM!!!*

When I was in the Royal Marines in the 60's/70's, picking oakum was still the punishment if you ended up in Naval detention quarters.


*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakum

 

[Ciaran12s]

They do you have the right to agree a tenancy on any terms you want. You just don't have the right to force terms on the landlord.

Therefore, in the vast majority of private rentals, due to the supply/demand you must agree to the terms which offer little stability, choose to live somewhere (who knows where) where you can get an agreement for 10 or 20 plus years or choose homelessness.
You are trying to say it's the renters choice to sign a tenancy agreement whether they don't feel comfortable with. If people don't like the tenancy agreements on offer, what do you suggest they do?

 

[BarnBrian]

They do you have the right to agree a tenancy on any terms you want. You just don't have the right to force terms on the landlord.

Therefore, in the vast majority of private rentals, due to the supply/demand you must agree to the terms which offer little stability, choose to live somewhere (who knows where) where you can get an agreement for 10 or 20 plus years or choose homelessness.
You are trying to say it's the renters choice to sign a tenancy agreement whether they don't feel comfortable with. If people don't like the tenancy agreements on offer, what do you suggest they do?

If you don't like the agreement that's on offer, try to negotiate, otherwise don't take it.
Believe me, being a landlord is not the money tree that you are portraying. I had one tenant, really nice guy, always on time with the rent for two years then he did a runner. When I went to the house, there was a hole in the ceiling and a big hole in the chimney breast, the place stunk of cannabis. Another tenant fell on hard times so I let her get behind on the rent. She did a runner and left me £3k down.
So signing a tenant up for a finite period is a definite no, no for me.

 

[Ciaran12s]

If you don't like the agreement that's on offer, try to negotiate, otherwise don't take it.
Believe me, being a landlord is not the money tree that you are portraying. I had one tenant, really nice guy, always on time with the rent for two years then he did a runner. When I went to the house, there was a hole in the ceiling and a big hole in the chimney breast, the place stunk of cannabis. Another tenant fell on hard times so I let her get behind on the rent. She did a runner and left me £3k down.
So signing a tenant up for a finite period is a definite no, no for me.

Negotiation - not going to happen! Don't take it? Alternative?

 

[simon12]

I don't know for sure but I suspect its the agents that want the short leases and many landlords would want longer leases try looking at places advertised privately or if you want a seriously long term ask the agents if they have any landlords willing to offer a commercial lease.

 

[BrewJarreau]

New Orleans has over 60% renters. Less than 40% of the city owns the house they live in. If you live in an even remotely desirable location, chances are very high that an Air BnB is or will be your neighbor. Short term rentals are literally DESTROYING the housing market and overinflating housing costs. Renters can 'make more money' by providing vacationers with a hotel than they can a family with a home. The complete lack of oversight for this in the name of capitalism is an absolute travesty...but you think - aww well I'm just one guy how much damage am I doing? It was recently uncovered that single company in San Diego owns 48 short term rentals in New Orleans. 48 Families without homes. That's ****** Up. Whats worse is that the banking community is all on board for funding these "investment properties" but hard pressed to give a working family a chance. Why? b/c of last housing meltdown...where a lack of regulation allowed greedy banks to **** people into a 8 years recession. What JUST happen to the laws we put in place to keep banks from doing that again. Trumpy poo just reversed them. Grease those butt holes people- it's about to get bad again.
-for the record, I bought a house in July 17' - it's been a glorious struggle. Do your homework!

The moral of this story is if you own Air BnB's (plural) you are a problem. Wage suppression is a problem. Lack of workplace inequality is a problem.
GO VOTE!

 

[simon12]

I remember a while back reading how in some places in the US there is a huge no of places rented long term by someone who then lets it on airbnb (both with and without the landlords consent) and it almost sounded like half the population must be there short term. London has a strict limit that you can only rent a place short term for a maximum of 90 days a year without planning permission for a B&B or guest house, which I think is a rule now on airbnb. For the rest of the country the rule varies but I am not aware of any area is a major problem. Its the only area I can think of that tougher planning regulation/enforcement helps the housing shortage.

 

[Gunge]

Two years from now I'm gonna buy me a barge and live on that.

 

[BrewJarreau]

I remember a while back reading how in some places in the US there is a huge no of places rented long term by someone who then lets it on airbnb (both with and without the landlords consent) and it almost sounded like half the population must be there short term. London has a strict limit that you can only rent a place short term for a maximum of 90 days a year without planning permission for a B&B or guest house, which I think is a rule now on airbnb. For the rest of the country the rule varies but I am not aware of any area is a major problem. Its the only area I can think of that tougher planning regulation/enforcement helps the housing shortage.

Cannabis is illegal too - does this stop anyone from smoking it? No.
There are 'rules' in placing saying you can't 'rent entire home' you have to 'occupy' a portion of it. This occupation is a closet labeled 'owners room'.
term limits are in place too - but NONE of it is enforced.

 

[simon12]

Cannabis is illegal too - does this stop anyone from smoking it? No.
There are 'rules' in placing saying you can't 'rent entire home' you have to 'occupy' a portion of it. This occupation is a closet labeled 'owners room'.
term limits are in place too - but NONE of it is enforced.

I don't disagree at all except I was not aware there is a different rule to let an entire house or flat to part of it.