Don’t settle into your home

is going to be the motto for local authority tenants in the future. No new tenancies will be for life any longer. Well that is what the new Conservative government has lumbered us with and that is big downer in my few. It is not only so in my view but in the view of most social tenants up and down the country.

How can you possibly settle into a home for a period of only 2 or 5 years? Can any benefit even cover the cost of the constant moving around, or how long would it take someone to pay off the loans for the home moving all the time?

What about the social stability? This article shows an exemplary estate where tenants have managed to make such a cosy environment out of their council estate, that it is listed as a good example of how well estates can look and function.

Every social landlord knows how many years it takes to influence social change and help develop some people’s attitude. As well as they know that for many with learning disabilities settling into a home takes a decade at least.

I think this brain-dead idea is very costly and does not solve the problem of unemployment and social stagnation at all, because it costs much more to administer unnecessary social movements rather than just house those from the areas they are in already. I am under the sneaky suspicion that the government brought in that law to be able to break up large areas where ethnic immigrants have settled and do not shift or disperse as they previously did. Looking at the area around Brick Lane for example, we saw that all types of groups of nationalities settled there but dispersed after some time whether they were Jewish, German or French but now with the Muslims there is no moving on at all. I think that move will enable the government to move around immigrants around the country to break them up.

Obviously housing itself is not responsible for stagnant social mobility but it is the 2-tier social structure in the UK and a lack of economic prosperity. Looking at my own estate, about 50% of homes are now privately owned and those leaseholders have a big stake in the modelling of our social futures in that they want their areas to be nice and do not wish to see problem tenants darkening their door steps. Only recently I was told that we are a nice family. I am however concerned that for those who have problems being nice that moving around will cause more instability rather than help. We had the social behaviour contracts for local authorities, we had the ASBOs, which are worked successfully but what really is at the heart o the problem is sheer poverty and how does one improve poverty? Once cannot improve it by creating greater costs for sure.  Perhaps the government thinks people will be more inclined to buy a property to avoid moving around all the time but with the current job insecurities, that is not a good enough reason at all.

In Germany where I come from, private rented homes can have termination periods as short as 3 months and then its out of the home, especially if the landlord needs the property for one of his children. People move around much more to find jobs but tenancy conditions are even stricter in that one has to re-decorate the flat before one moves out and/or get the deposit back. That however is again, very expensive. Yet the German system heavily relies on ID cards as a central source of identification, which is something the Conservatives fought, just because the idea came from Labour, but how long will they resist the pressure when the social mobility takes over and local authority and or business administration will become very expensive over the bigger workload because of the constant moving around.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits