Dear Mr Dromey, making houses more expensive doesn't solve your housing crisis.

****

The utter lunacy of Labour's emerging housing policies become more apparent with each passing day. We have seen how Labour MPs are backing policies that charge landlords up to £800 per property just for the happy privilege of being allowed to rent those properties. Apparently this deals with the tiny minority of "rogue" landlords. And now we see Jack Dromey, uber-stalinist Labour housing spokesman advocating huge imposts on housing development:

Mr Dromey attacked the government for allowing section 106 agreements, which require developers to include affordable housing in developments, to be waived where schemes are unviable.

Now, dear reader, not the stupidity here. If the scheme is unviable because of the s106 agreement it doesn't really matter how much you shout and scream about fairness or the "residualisation of social housing" those houses won't be built. And we either need the houses - whatever their tenure - or we don't need the houses. If it's the former then we have to adjust the externalities (such as contributions to or provision of "affordable" housing) so as to make the scheme viable.

And while we're on the subject of nonsense here's Mervyn Jones from Yorkshire Housing banging the drum for wealthy housing associations like his to get more government subsidy:

...Mervyn Jones, chief executive of Yorkshire Housing, warned that revenue models that raise rents to increase capacity of associations ‘in the end always cost more to the public purse and of course help us reach our capacity quicker.’

Two quick points: the extra cost is only because three-quarters of Mervyn's tenants are on housing benefit. And the subsidy is the subsidy - it may fall better for the housing association if it is from higher rents but it is not higher.

....

David Orr knows this is nonsense. Most people in social housing aren't working.

*****

Perhaps it's just doing a favour for his pals in the Labour Party but David Orr from the National Housing Federation shouldn't be saying things he knows aren't true:

“However, the idea of selling off social housing in 'high value’ areas to build more in cheaper areas is fundamentally flawed.

“It could effectively cleanse many towns of hard-working people who simply can’t afford the high prices of buying or renting privately.” 

I know this statement is nonsense because the houses of Nat Fed members are filled mostly with people who aren't working. I've sat in meeting after meeting where I've heard the words "most of our tenants live on benefits".  Take a look:

Not only does this show how things changed from 1981 but it also reveals the lie in David Orr's statement. Three-quarters of social housing tenants (in 2006 but I can't believe much has changed since) are not working. So selling off social housing in high value areas clearly won't "cleanse many towns of hard-working people". It might mean fewer old people, fewer single mums and fewer folk who are too ill to work but it won't mean fewer hard-workers. For those hard working people are living in private rented housing since the allocations system gives preference to those with particular vulnerabilities. And David Orr knows this.

....

Because there isn't a good enough return maybe?

****

The Communities and Local Government Select Committee (prop. Clive Betts MP) are asking why large pension funds aren't investing in social housing:

Mr Betts said housing associations represent ‘an ideal instrument’ for pension funds and other institutional investors.

‘I want [social housing] to be something that pension funds and other institutions invest in,’ explained Mr Betts. ‘I very much want to hear evidence on this issue. We want the people who have the money to tell us what they want to invest in.’

I agree with Mr Betts - pension funds have been very reluctant to invest in residential rent opportunities of any kind but - and it's a big but - now they're interested in the sector, why on earth should they invest in social housing with rents at £300 per month when that can invest in market rented property at £1,200 per month?

The reduction (virtual removal) of grants for social housing and the structure of rents makes the social housing sector unattractive as an investment.  Perhaps we should be looking more closely at the way rents are determined - perhaps through a housing allowance system rather than the setting of artificially low rents? That would make such investment very attractive given the current housing market pressures.

....

Another nail....

Let's be honest my friends, some stuff just pisses you off. We try very hard to stay balanced, even-tempered and moderate but then something comes along that does it again -bangs another nail into the coffin of your sanity.

Today, despite West Ham finally winning a game - away from home against a proper team - I am sorely tried. A miasma of gloom has descended upon me prompted by the futility of it all.

And then I read this....

The chief executives of 10 housing associations who are paid more than David Cameron will be targeted by the housing minister, Grant Shapps, at the associations' annual conference in Birmingham tomorrow. He will tell the National Housing Federation conference that since the prime minister cut his salary to £142,500 when he took office in May, housing associations should review how much they pay their senior staff and should subject them to the same scrutiny as ministers and public bodies.

One of the targeted organisations - Places for People - is one of the UK's largest property management and regeneration companies. It has nearly £3bn in assets and manages over 60,000 houses. Its 2009 turnover was approaching £290 million. It's a big, complex, PRIVATE, organisation and it pays its Chief Exectuive over £200,000.

I don't see this as a problem. And certainly not a problem meriting a cheap headline for a government minister.

Grant Shapps is a Tory. We believe in private organisations doing what private organisations do best. Housing associations are private organisations - how much they pay their bosses is absolutely nothing...nothing...zilch...to do with Mr Shapps.

....