Affordable Housing

[BigMouth]

^ I have loathed and boycotted Branson and his companies for at least the last 20 years. He started out with something good, and so badly lost his way when he became successful and wealthy its not funny.

 

Efficiencies across the board with everything 'the man' does could save eye-watering sums that could be so much better spent on the population providing what matters to all. We have the Council, Scots Government, Westminster and Brussels, each with heavily salaried elected representatives, ostentatious buildings, beureaucratic systems awash with admin and record keeping and massive staffs to keep it all going which all costs obscene sums. We don't need them all, we did as well, and were probably better provided for when it was just two, the council and Westminster. Get rid of two of the external bodies, any two, how much would that save.

 

If you have any vehicle on the road you pay an annual tax, fuel tax, plus VAT on fuel, each of those taxes has its own stand alone admin and beureaucratic system, costing how much? Combine the three in to one tax, you slash 'overheads' by circa 66.6%.....

 

Similar scenarios exist for just about every publically financed 'service', The system exists primarily to feed and prepetrate itself, providing the population with anything is a secondary sideline that gets only the lip service it must to justify the systems existence. Fix that gravy train and the whole cost/delivery of 'public services' is re-written back to where it should always have been, massively in favour of those who finance/use/benefit from it, not those who run it.

 

In time of austerity, the only place not being expected to tighten its belt is government.  When politicians can sit in a bar in Westminster drinking sunsidised alcohol, something has gone horribly wrong.  Ten per cent pay rises, second homes allowances and other financial wheezes just add to the reasons many of us would like to see the back of them.

[BigMouth]

 

Presumably, in your rosy world I could buy one of the uninhabited islands, and expect a full set of services at the cost of everyone else on Shetland. Run a ferry back and forth to me, perhaps a plane could drop in a few times a week. A bridge or a tunnel would be nice, quick before the LPA hear about it. Everything first class please.

 

The poverty is greater in the isles and it is never going to move to there in any great amount. People on the Shetland mainland have every opportunity to buy empty houses on the isles, modernise them and rent them out at social housing rent levels. They don't because they are looking after themselves, and that is what we do in capitalist societies rightly or wrongly. In the meantime the rest of us pay to subsidise everything else for you.

 

When the soothmoothers joined the council they brought a dose of realism. You wouldn't run a household budget the way the council up to then were running theirs, for the want of the courage to close a few schools. Skerries school closed and this has had a negative effect on the place, although there were other factors around available employment too. Through natural wastage the population will deplete, but the hardy will hang on at great cost to the rest of us as they demand their services.

 

Depopulating some of the smaller islands would reduce the poverty of many of those on them and lower the costs for the rest of us.

 

My drive sits unadorned with an Aston Martin. I don't expect any of you to buy one for me.

"In the meantime the rest of us pay to subsidise everything else for you." Really? What part of Shetland are you from?

 

The seafood industry is worth £584m to the Shetland economy, 70% of that is generated DIRECTLY from the North Isles (41.6%) and the North Mainland (28.3%). Rural Shetland, these two areas in particular, is the engine that drives the Shetland economy. Without the industry of the North Shetland would be a very different, and poorer, place. The North Isles are NOT a burden and should never be treated as such.

 

The cultural, social and historical value of these communities to Shetland as a whole is another factor which cannot be ignored.

 

As for your revelations about us living in a capitalist society, that is all well and good but you have lost sight of one vital point - the Government is not a business. It's function is not to make profits, it's function is (supposedly) to govern and provide services for the population. 

 

Regarding your assertions about "soothmoothers" and the Council, I find it very disrespectful to the Councillors and Officials who achieved a difficult task and balanced the books during the last 5 year period. I do not agree with every decision they made but it cannot be argued that they displayed sound financial management on the whole in the face of challenging circumstances. I know for a fact that this is not all down to "soothmoothers" as you bizarrely claim.

 

You seem to possess a warped view of Shetland and an incredible theory that if we simply dumped all the residents from the outer isles onto the mainland it would solve the housing problem. Not only is this an over-simplification of the problem it is a callous, incorrect and distasteful view towards your fellow Shetlanders who live on these islands.

 

 

Its interesting to see that you haven't mentioned the three islands that I mentioned.  Come back with the GDP of those and I might be more convinced by your argument.

 

The government is not a business, but it seeks to help viable businesses thrive where possible, (and line their own pockets - obviously).  Services are provided through taxation of the citizens to provide services where those services are unattractive to the entrepreneur class.

 

It is exactly for the last 5 years that I am congratulationg the councillors and officers.  Before this time there was a god awful amount of dithering and kicking the ball into the long grass.  Those in the last five years took on the challenge and forgot that peerie Lowrie and da past 10 generations hae bin gaen to da sam skol, looked at it with cold reasoning and asked why a school was being kept open for a handful of kids.

 

With an invest to save policy Hjaltland could throw up a good few houses in a rural location on mainland Shetland, and Papa Stour could be uplifted to them.  That saves the cost of the plane, ferry and whatever other services they get.  Land will never be a problem as "there's no money in crofting" is the all too often heard refrain.  Then we repeat the exercise with Fetlar and Foula.

[whalsa]

 

 

Presumably, in your rosy world I could buy one of the uninhabited islands, and expect a full set of services at the cost of everyone else on Shetland. Run a ferry back and forth to me, perhaps a plane could drop in a few times a week. A bridge or a tunnel would be nice, quick before the LPA hear about it. Everything first class please.

 

The poverty is greater in the isles and it is never going to move to there in any great amount. People on the Shetland mainland have every opportunity to buy empty houses on the isles, modernise them and rent them out at social housing rent levels. They don't because they are looking after themselves, and that is what we do in capitalist societies rightly or wrongly. In the meantime the rest of us pay to subsidise everything else for you.

 

When the soothmoothers joined the council they brought a dose of realism. You wouldn't run a household budget the way the council up to then were running theirs, for the want of the courage to close a few schools. Skerries school closed and this has had a negative effect on the place, although there were other factors around available employment too. Through natural wastage the population will deplete, but the hardy will hang on at great cost to the rest of us as they demand their services.

 

Depopulating some of the smaller islands would reduce the poverty of many of those on them and lower the costs for the rest of us.

 

My drive sits unadorned with an Aston Martin. I don't expect any of you to buy one for me.

"In the meantime the rest of us pay to subsidise everything else for you." Really? What part of Shetland are you from?

 

The seafood industry is worth £584m to the Shetland economy, 70% of that is generated DIRECTLY from the North Isles (41.6%) and the North Mainland (28.3%). Rural Shetland, these two areas in particular, is the engine that drives the Shetland economy. Without the industry of the North Shetland would be a very different, and poorer, place. The North Isles are NOT a burden and should never be treated as such.

 

The cultural, social and historical value of these communities to Shetland as a whole is another factor which cannot be ignored.

 

As for your revelations about us living in a capitalist society, that is all well and good but you have lost sight of one vital point - the Government is not a business. It's function is not to make profits, it's function is (supposedly) to govern and provide services for the population. 

 

Regarding your assertions about "soothmoothers" and the Council, I find it very disrespectful to the Councillors and Officials who achieved a difficult task and balanced the books during the last 5 year period. I do not agree with every decision they made but it cannot be argued that they displayed sound financial management on the whole in the face of challenging circumstances. I know for a fact that this is not all down to "soothmoothers" as you bizarrely claim.

 

You seem to possess a warped view of Shetland and an incredible theory that if we simply dumped all the residents from the outer isles onto the mainland it would solve the housing problem. Not only is this an over-simplification of the problem it is a callous, incorrect and distasteful view towards your fellow Shetlanders who live on these islands.

 

 

Its interesting to see that you haven't mentioned the three islands that I mentioned.  Come back with the GDP of those and I might be more convinced by your argument.

 

The government is not a business, but it seeks to help viable businesses thrive where possible, (and line their own pockets - obviously).  Services are provided through taxation of the citizens to provide services where those services are unattractive to the entrepreneur class.

 

It is exactly for the last 5 years that I am congratulationg the councillors and officers.  Before this time there was a god awful amount of dithering and kicking the ball into the long grass.  Those in the last five years took on the challenge and forgot that peerie Lowrie and da past 10 generations hae bin gaen to da sam skol, looked at it with cold reasoning and asked why a school was being kept open for a handful of kids.

 

With an invest to save policy Hjaltland could throw up a good few houses in a rural location on mainland Shetland, and Papa Stour could be uplifted to them.  That saves the cost of the plane, ferry and whatever other services they get.  Land will never be a problem as "there's no money in crofting" is the all too often heard refrain.  Then we repeat the exercise with Fetlar and Foula.

 

I think you need to familiarise yourself with the electoral boundaries. I mentioned the "North Isles" of which Skerries and Fetlar are two. It is hard enough to get Shetland's GDP (I have done a fair bit of research in this area) let alone for islands of those sizes. Shetland contributes colossal sums to the national economy and treasury, if some small areas are a net cost it is more than made up by other areas. Why should they not be supported?

 

A strange sort of "congratulating" by crediting all the success to "soothmoothers".

 

Papa Stour could be "uplifted" you say? Whatever term you couch it in, what you are proposing is forcible relocation which I suspect would be a breach of human rights among other things. 

 

Thinking along these lines is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. Sadly I suspect it is ill informed attitudes like these which has caused the endless centralisation and lack of investment in Shetlands rural communities. 

[fionajohn]

when one of the isles are evacuated and empty capt calimity can declair his independent kingom under nordic rule 

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@BigMouth - You sure you don't want to do away with social housing totally?  Or force people to move to the moon?  Your diatribe belongs in the bin.

[BigMouth]

@BigMouth - You sure you don't want to do away with social housing totally?  Or force people to move to the moon?  Your diatribe belongs in the bin.

 

No certainly not.  Mass building of social housing would reduce housing need and reduce rents in the private sector.  The parasitic nature of Buy to Let would become less attractive meaning that more houses in the private sector would be released to those that wanted to buy.  Building social housing would create jobs and create wealth.  There will always be a waiting list, but I think the length of ours shame us as a community.  Those houses need to be built in places where people want to live, places that are not so geographically removed from places of employment.  They need to be in places where fuel poverty is lower, and the realism is that the further you get from Lerwick the worse it gets for all too many.

[BigMouth]

when one of the isles are evacuated and empty capt calimity can declair his independent kingom under nordic rule 

 

Everyones a winner

[Urabug]

Mass building,BigMouth like a few more Sandveiens and exactly where ? 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Urabug

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

[BigMouth]

Whalsa said

"I think you need to familiarise yourself with the electoral boundaries. I mentioned the "North Isles" of which Skerries and Fetlar are two. It is hard enough to get Shetland's GDP (I have done a fair bit of research in this area) let alone for islands of those sizes. Shetland contributes colossal sums to the national economy and treasury, if some small areas are a net cost it is more than made up by other areas. Why should they not be supported?

A strange sort of "congratulating" by crediting all the success to "soothmoothers".

Papa Stour could be "uplifted" you say? Whatever term you couch it in, what you are proposing is forcible relocation which I suspect would be a breach of human rights among other things. 

Thinking along these lines is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. Sadly I suspect it is ill informed attitudes like these which has caused the endless centralisation and lack of investment in Shetlands rural communities. "

End

 

The success goes much further than the soothmoothers, but they were the people that got things moving.

 

There is no need for anyone to be forcibly removed.  If people want the luxury of living in remote locations they should bear the cost.  Stop paying council tax, stop receiving council services.  Houses will be provided should they wish to take them up on the mainland.

 

Rather than ill-informed, my ideas are realistic.  I don't see how you can look at the Yell ferries and accuse anyone of there being no investment in the isles.  Take another look at the international ferry terminal on Fetlar.  This is money being sucked away from the majority, where it is really needed - Lerwick and the mainland.

[BigMouth]

Mass building,BigMouth like a few more Sandveiens and exactly where ? 

 

Sandveien is the worst example of housing in Shetland and obviously the reason you chose it.  Whoever designed that place should be forced to live in it.

 

Hjaltland have some bloody awful houses and also some excellent ones, and there is no reason they couldn't throw up a lot more.   As for location, either Scalloway or Gulberwick areas would be good.  Both are well served by public transport, including being on the only routes that have sunday bus services.  Hjaltland are the only ones likely to throw up modern, light places, with some thought to householders running costs and where to put the car.

 

As I have said before in this thread, "there's no money in crofting" apparently, so the land should be cheap.

[BigMouth]

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

 

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

 

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

 

Disagreement is fine.

 

You haven't told me the percentage of those that can afford to buy, more interestingly the number.  The reason that there is a lack of available properties in the private sector is because so many have been bought to let out or as holiday lets.  If they can afford to buy I am at a loss as to why they are not having a property built, surely it would be cheaper, assuming it is not in the centre of Lerwick.

 

I imagine that the waiting list number is fairly easily arrived at.  It will be the number of people who have applied for housing, plus the peole they want to house with them minus those already housed.

 

Allocating a one bed house to 3 people seems a tad Victorian, unless the third is a baby.  When I first applied for a property in Shetland I was told that there was no way that we would be considered for a two bed property for the two of us.  I sat on the list for years deliberately choosing only areas where there were no 1 bed properties.

 

There is no reason that building social housing should be any more expensive, in fact judging by the economy materials used and the small windows sizes, social housing should be much cheaper.  There is no way that government would be lashing out money on Hjaltland HA if some local builder would take on the erection and running of housing schemes.  Do I detect a note of snobbery in "folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc"?  Yes, there are some people in social housing with problems, especially addiction, but the rest of them are just like the rest of us, minding their own business, going out to work and living their lives.  I don't see burnt out cars and houses on any of the schemes I have visited.  So the few spoil it for the many, but it is hardly surprising when you hear items of news: Mick Smith 27 was arrested in his council house for taking drugs, but they don't say John Smith 27 was arrested in his private sector house later in the day for kiddy fiddling.  We are brought up on a diet of council house tenants = bad.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town, I agree, and yes better public transport would be better in ensuring uptake in properties further out, and a realistic chance that the tenants could get to work.  Local economies work where businesses set up and employ people from the local area.  I am only too happy to see that sort of enterprise.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

 

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

 

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

 

Disagreement is fine.

 

You haven't told me the percentage of those that can afford to buy, more interestingly the number.  The reason that there is a lack of available properties in the private sector is because so many have been bought to let out or as holiday lets.  If they can afford to buy I am at a loss as to why they are not having a property built, surely it would be cheaper, assuming it is not in the centre of Lerwick.

 

I imagine that the waiting list number is fairly easily arrived at.  It will be the number of people who have applied for housing, plus the peole they want to house with them minus those already housed.

 

Allocating a one bed house to 3 people seems a tad Victorian, unless the third is a baby.  When I first applied for a property in Shetland I was told that there was no way that we would be considered for a two bed property for the two of us.  I sat on the list for years deliberately choosing only areas where there were no 1 bed properties.

 

There is no reason that building social housing should be any more expensive, in fact judging by the economy materials used and the small windows sizes, social housing should be much cheaper.  There is no way that government would be lashing out money on Hjaltland HA if some local builder would take on the erection and running of housing schemes.  Do I detect a note of snobbery in "folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc"?  Yes, there are some people in social housing with problems, especially addiction, but the rest of them are just like the rest of us, minding their own business, going out to work and living their lives.  I don't see burnt out cars and houses on any of the schemes I have visited.  So the few spoil it for the many, but it is hardly surprising when you hear items of news: Mick Smith 27 was arrested in his council house for taking drugs, but they don't say John Smith 27 was arrested in his private sector house later in the day for kiddy fiddling.  We are brought up on a diet of council house tenants = bad.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town, I agree, and yes better public transport would be better in ensuring uptake in properties further out, and a realistic chance that the tenants could get to work.  Local economies work where businesses set up and employ people from the local area.  I am only too happy to see that sort of enterprise.

 

The precise figures aren't available but during the last lot of council new builds, it was reported by some of the new tenants that they were on the list because they lost out when bidding for private buys.

 

It isn't so easy to get a mortgage on a self-build given that quite often you have to buy the land first, etc.  You basically need to be self-funding, which is fine if you have family willing to chip in.

 

Wrong re Housing figures.  For starters, they've never made it clear whether they count each application or the individuals listed on each application, plus folk can choose more than one area; the detail is in their 'spin' (or lack of it) when they do press releases.  Somebody already housed isn't necessarily up for a transfer or living in social housing but they are, nevertheless, on 'a list'.

 

You're forgetting to factor in for roads ... look at the cost of the last council new build.

 

Blooming heck, will ya wind ya neck in a tad with your totally off-the-wall assumptions!  I DO live in a council abode.  It's not bleeding snobbery, it's FACT.  If you're up here repairing the airport runway for three months, you rent locally, you don't join the housing waiting list!  And quite often, the same houses are rented to tourists as are rented out to others outside of the tourist season.

[whalsa]

Whalsa said

"I think you need to familiarise yourself with the electoral boundaries. I mentioned the "North Isles" of which Skerries and Fetlar are two. It is hard enough to get Shetland's GDP (I have done a fair bit of research in this area) let alone for islands of those sizes. Shetland contributes colossal sums to the national economy and treasury, if some small areas are a net cost it is more than made up by other areas. Why should they not be supported?

 

A strange sort of "congratulating" by crediting all the success to "soothmoothers".

 

Papa Stour could be "uplifted" you say? Whatever term you couch it in, what you are proposing is forcible relocation which I suspect would be a breach of human rights among other things. 

 

Thinking along these lines is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. Sadly I suspect it is ill informed attitudes like these which has caused the endless centralisation and lack of investment in Shetlands rural communities. "

End

 

The success goes much further than the soothmoothers, but they were the people that got things moving.

 

There is no need for anyone to be forcibly removed.  If people want the luxury of living in remote locations they should bear the cost.  Stop paying council tax, stop receiving council services.  Houses will be provided should they wish to take them up on the mainland.

 

Rather than ill-informed, my ideas are realistic.  I don't see how you can look at the Yell ferries and accuse anyone of there being no investment in the isles.  Take another look at the international ferry terminal on Fetlar.  This is money being sucked away from the majority, where it is really needed - Lerwick and the mainland.

Your ignorance astounds me "Big Mouth". Who is stopping paying council tax?

 

The Yell ferries were built in 2002. That is 15 years ago. What about the Whalsay service or the Unst service? Ageing, regulation breaking vessels and crumbling terminals which become more of a liability every year that passes. 

 

Money being sucked away from the majority, the opposite is true. The majority sucks the money away from the rural areas where the vast majority of money is actually generated. 

 

You also repeatedly refer to closeness to jobs, there are PLENTY of jobs which are located outside Lerwick. SVT and SGP for example, not to mention all the salmon and mussel farms. 

 

Simply put you are clueless about what keeps Shetland going, as well as about what would solve the housing problem (hint, offering everyone from the outer isles first choice in social housing would not improve matters!!!). 

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Stop receiving council services?!!!! Well for starters, out in the sticks we do NOT get the same services as in town; for example, we don't get the pavements swept.