|
So Kensington and Chelsea have the most unoccupied homes. But realistically we can't say that the man sleeping rough could easily move into one of those houses, because to buy/ lease or rent would be way out of his price range.
I agree there should be low cost housing, but that does bring problems as well. For councils to look after the properties, which are often not looked after by the tenants, is very costly. We have seen the cladding scandal exposed, and at some locations councils are paying for a fire engine to be on 24 hr standby. Generally councils are pretty poor at managing and getting value for money.
Well that's a nice spin on it.
To actually own your own home and be responsible for it, changes social attitudes. You would not see what we call 'sink estates' any more.
The policy was all about enabling tenants, to actually step up the social and economic ladder and feel proud of their own home. The homes became well looked after. Councils did not have to spent our rates/ council tax on upkeep. Dare I say, crime was lowered?
Of course there were financial abuses - but there were also abuses of the council house system. High earners befitting from subsidised accommodation.
And the bottom line is that those homes did not vanish, they are still there. The numbers are the same. |
|