Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing • Hacker News Board

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#61

Post by FDSGSG » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 3:10 PM UTC

sigwinch28 wrote: post #19

jchb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are remin…

> Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that? Every time they have visitors, every time they go home, every time they get the post, every time their children see a playground they are not allowed to use [0]? Yes. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-p...

I live in fancy expensive luxury housing, next to mine there's even fancier, almost twice as expensive housing.

Is it bad that every time I have visitors, every time I go home, every time I get the post I see the wonderful infinity pools which I'm not allowed to use?

I'm not sure if there's a significant difference between my story and the one in the article.

Sure, I feel a tiny bit jealous every time I look out of the window. But that's just a reminder that I should work harder.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#62

Post by llamathrowaway » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

jchb wrote: post #12

Jonnax wrote: post #2

So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing, To be able to get planning approval. Seems very reasonable because property developers make a lot of money selling luxury homes. And also in a lot of places the development is made after demolishing "unsightly" high density social housing. Often with far fewer homes than there were there orig…

> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are remin…

82% of the people in Singapore live in public housing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

Public housing is only 'temporary' if we as a society choose to believe so. There is nothing that makes public housing inherently 'temporary' or undesirable.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#63

Post by quibbler » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #58

quibbler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor peole (on welfare) are mor likely to be trouble - they are on welfare for a reason.. Rich people pay good money to be shielded from trouble. Do you have children? Did you get a cheap flat in the poor part of town? Many families pay higher rents, so that their kids have save streets and playgrounds to play in. In my middle class neighborhood, I am not aware if a rich kid causing trouble. What trouble do you h…

> The poor people (on welfare) are more likely to be trouble - they are on welfare for a reason.. as someone who's family has lived on welfare too, i find that notion insulting. the reason for people being on welfare most often has nothing to do with people getting in trouble. loosing a job, divorce, natural disasters, illness in the family. there are many reasons someone could need welfare. i urge you to really meet…

The likelihood is higher. That doesn't mean every poor person has issues. Being offended about reality makes no sense.

The things you mentioned can be reasons, but so can mental illness, including drug addiction.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#64

Post by quibbler » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #42

xorcist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the argument is here. Living in an apartment is completely unnatural in itself.

what would you consider natural? living outside in the bush? in germany, owning property is considered unnatural or rather not the norm unless you are a farmer. it's all about how society develops and what it chooses as their lifestyle.

That is not true about Germany. Renting is more common than elsewhere, but plenty of people buy, too.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#65

Post by manicdee » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

hackeraccount wrote: post #59

jlangenauer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why must “social housing” be temporary? I have no problem with people living the entire lives in social housing if they do wish, as it’s a good way of distributing the wealth of countries, and the state can provide secure, affordable housing much better than capricious profit-driven landlords.

It's inefficient. Imagine going to the grocery store - you go in and buy what you want. Now imagine you were taking money from one person and going to the grocery store to buy for a second person. How much do you take? What do you buy? It adds a layer of ignorance to something straightforward. It's true enough that sometimes that's necessary - what if the person you're buying food for will starve to death if you don'…

Completely irrelevant analogy.

Social housing doesn’t have to cater to whims and desires like whether someone wants gold taps. It’s not a question of how many bedrooms a person really desires, it’s like a soup kitchen where there is one dish on offer and that is better than starving in the street.

Social housing is far more efficient than the options of leaving people homeless in the street, or relying on industry to self regulate, or of passing regulations that X% of housing must conform to certain price limits while still being liveable.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#66

Post by manicdee » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

jchb wrote: post #12

Jonnax wrote: post #2

So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing, To be able to get planning approval. Seems very reasonable because property developers make a lot of money selling luxury homes. And also in a lot of places the development is made after demolishing "unsightly" high density social housing. Often with far fewer homes than there were there orig…

> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are remin…

Yes it s bad that people are continually reminded that they have no place in society. The chronic unemployed need support not chastisement. The people returning to work after lengthy illness need support not reminders of their place in the pecking order.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#67

Post by PunksATawnyFill » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

jchb wrote: post #12

Jonnax wrote: post #2

So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing, To be able to get planning approval. Seems very reasonable because property developers make a lot of money selling luxury homes. And also in a lot of places the development is made after demolishing "unsightly" high density social housing. Often with far fewer homes than there were there orig…

> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are remin…

The developers have been granted the privilege to profit mightily, and for that they will be required to provide some public good. They already get away with providing a TINY amount of so-called "affordable" housing, which (at least in the USA) is rarely actually affordable. And these deals are often reneged on... somehow with impunity.

In return for providing this tiny proportion of "affordable" units (or sometimes for no legitimate reason at all), developers are often given a free pass on not providing adequate parking, and for vastly increasing traffic congestion... permanently degrading the standard of living for existing residents in the neighborhood.

Is it necessarily bad to remind developers of that?

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#68

Post by madaxe_again » Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 6:08 AM UTC

wwdhx wrote: post #35

madaxe_again wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t know the kind of people who receive social housing, and it shows.

I do, because I live surrounded by social housing blocks. And just last week they were lighting a campfire inside their building. After many years you can't imagine the things I've seen. Maybe it's you who doesn't know the kind of people who receive social housing.

You used the wrong sock puppet, vwdhx.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#69

Post by xorcist » Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 9:40 AM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #49

madaxe_again wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how is somebody earning £60 a day going to pay for a £23/day commute, and housing on top of that, smartypants? Oh, right, taxpayer money. It’s almost like they’ve modelled this out before making it policy.

What exactly is wrong about using taxpayer money to subsidize those commutes? I think we should certainly impose heavier taxes on the luxury developments and the rich living in them.

No taxpayer money is being spent. That's the whole point of this system, to avoid spending on housing benefits by utilizing price caps.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#70

Post by ryanlol » Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 1:20 PM UTC

xorcist wrote: post #69

ryanlol wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is wrong about using taxpayer money to subsidize those commutes? I think we should certainly impose heavier taxes on the luxury developments and the rich living in them.

No taxpayer money is being spent. That's the whole point of this system, to avoid spending on housing benefits by utilizing price caps.

Are the developers not taxpayers?

No spending is avoided here, it’s merely obscured a little.

Taxing the developers for straight cash would at least give the government more control on how it is spend.