Housing problems

December 2016

Updated November 2024

For many years I’ve had a few thoughts about the apparent housing problems but they have only been random thoughts. More recently I’ve been doing some joined up thinking about the housing problems, homelessness, general poverty and these are problems that should not exist in a modern affluent world. Some of the housing and poverty problems have been around for years and date back to pre – Victorian days and well before. The UK is one of the most affluent nations in the world and has been for quite a few years but yet we still have people living in poverty! But worse than that we have people having to sleep rough and the numbers are increasing. On top of that, we have more people having to rely on “soup kitchens” and “Food Banks” because they can’t afford to buy food and yes I accept there will be a few free loaders and “professional beggars”. It’s not just housing, it’s the whole “poverty” situation and disparity between the “rich and the poor” that needs sorting out. Unemployment is currently fairly low but low wages are often only letting some people just manage to survive and that is not acceptable in a modern affluent country.

At risk of going off on a tangent:-

There should be a fair days pay for a fair days work. It’s just not acceptable for CEOs and “Directors” to be paid £ millions pa while the people doing the work (the essence of the business) are paid peanuts and often have to claim “benefits” to make up their income, which is paid for by the public purse. Businesses that don’t pay a “Living wage” are businesses that shouldn’t be in business! The public purse is not there to support businesses that don’t pay a “living wage”! The “personal tax” situation should not be to support businesses that don’t pay a “living wage”.

The “minimum wage” thing is maybe a step in the right direction but it doesn’t go far enough with regards to a “Living Wage”. As of April 2021, the annual minimum wage is about £18000 and that isn’t much for working about 40 hours per week.

I’m an advocate of paying people more because they have the skills and knowledge acquired from “further education” and training. It is acceptable that these people should be paid more for the work they do but “Teamwork” is a big factor. In most situations, the highly skilled and educated people would not be able to do their jobs if the low or non-skilled people didn’t do their jobs! We all have our place in the employment arena and there needs to be more parity, with regards to teamwork.

What about (poor) pensioners! The annual state pension is about £8000 per person, that is a lot less than £18000 and most “pensioners” have worked for 40+ years and have paid their taxes and “contributions”, why should they be getting less than the minimum wage! They still have to pay utility bills and buy food.

Housing, why is it a problem?

Housing / Shelter / provision of homes for the masses is generally a world wide issue, not just in he UK.

In a nutshell, housing is a problem because we don’t have enough houses, it’s a no brainer! Housing or “shelter” is a basic need, pretty much along the lines of food and water. If we go back far enough in history, if you wanted shelter (from the elements) you just found an empty cave or constructed some sort of shelter to give protection from the elements. In the early days of humans our numbers were a “handful” so it’s likely that finding / creating / building a home wasn’t too difficult but we have gone from 2 people (apparently) to todays count of around 7 BILLION (now 8+ Billion), that is mind boggling! This increase in human bodies has been rising over the 1000s (?) of years that humans have been on the planet and the lack of decent homes has worsened over the years, although it may be an improvement on living in a cave! It’s likely that we ran out of caves and had to start constructing homes / shelter from wood, stones, bricks, mud etc.

The construction of basic shelter is not difficult, the Inuit people (Eskimos) use ice to make make Igloos but not so much in modern times. Ancient cultures used stone and probably wood, the Romans even used concrete! In principle our choice of building materials is only limited by the availability of a chosen material.

Building a “make shift” / temporary shelter is not too difficult, many nomadic people construct “tents” (or similar) but building something more permanent often needs certain skills and these skills can be learned by most people, who want to learn. Generally it would appear that most people would prefer to let skilled craftsmen build a home for them and then pay them or pay rent.

When people (humans) started to live in “societies” instead of “family groups”, they lived in “villages / hamlets / settlements”. The houses would have been mainly constructed of wood / stone / bricks / mud / and even Straw and have lacked the “mod cons” of running water and “suitable” sanitation. Over time, those with more wealth had better quality and larger housing and at some stage had better sanitation. It would seem that there has always been a disparity in the quality of housing between the “haves” and the “have nots”. The “haves” have always had better quality housing than the “have nots”.

As an aside, it isn’t clear why (through out history) we have the “Haves” and the “Have nots” but it’s likely due to force or threat of force. In more modern times (say the past 200 / 300 years) we have had “industrialists” that have become wealthy and their wealth was generated by their very low paid employees (who carry / carried out the “Essence of Business“). That doesn’t really explain the “Gentry / Nobility” thing, who don’t seem to do anything to benefit society. Maybe they are a throwback to the “force or threat of force days”. In the modern world, we are all better educated and in many cases better skilled. The “nobility thing” is yesterday, we are all equal and no one should be “entitled” to have more privileges than others. Successful “industrialists” (Like James Dyson and others who make life better for most) should be suitably rewarded but it doesn’t mean they are “entitled” to more land or to have larger homes than the rest of us. The Earth belongs to no one and we should all share the world as equally and as fairly as possible.

A critical factor in the housing problems is the “Land ownership” thing and this has probably been a factor since humans started living in societies. In reality, no one has any legitimate claim to own land because the Earth doesn’t have a sales office to sell land. This means that land ownership was originally achieved by force or threat of force and because it’s gone on so long it appears that land ownership has become acceptable. So you can sell land you down actually own and to buy land that can best be described as “stolen property” that you still don’t own! The Earth belongs to no human, no parts of the Earth belong to any human. The Earth was here a long time before humans started to inhabit it. Humans have no “right” to own land!

Due to the “Land Ownership” thing, people could no longer find a suitable location and build a home, without the “Land Owners” consent.

At some stage, the idea of building housing and charging “rent” to people that wanted somewhere to live became the de facto option. Unfortunately most of the housing was cramped and lacked “suitable” sanitation. A supply of clean wholesome water to each dwelling was only something that one could dream about. This type of housing quickly became “slums” that were overcrowded and not very nice to live in but it did offer some shelter. Not all rented homes are “slums”, some are kept in very good condition due to the “landlords” wanting to protect their “investment”. These “quality” rental homes attract “premium rents”!

It seems that over the years the provision of shelter / homes has become a cash cow for the few and this is compounded by the invention of Banks who invented the financial systems and loaning money on the basis of “We promise to pay the bearer”!

Housing is a basic need and when we (humans) started living as societies, housing should have been addressed but over the years (due to the Land Ownership thing) this seems to have been left to the “private sector” to build homes for purchase or rent to enable them to profit from a basic need and this is very much akin to drug dealers only much worse because there are a lot of parasites to feed! The problem has been compounded by allowing housing to become in a poor state of repair but still charging high rents for houses that are damp and in poor condition.

The solution to the housing shortage is to build more “quality” Social housing to make sure everyone has a home!

Not that easy though is it 🙂 Coupled with the housing shortage problem, we have the fantasy world of finance, created by banks and financial institutions where they can lend the same £ / $ (etc) to hundreds or even thousands of people and it’s all based on the “I promise to pay the bearer“! The banks don’t build houses to sell or rent, they lend you the money to enable you buy a house and that means you are then gambling on your future capability to keep up with the mortgage payments. You are considered to be the legal owner of the house and as such you have to carry out all the maintenance and keep it in good repair but in reality, the house isn’t really yours until the last penny of the mortgage is paid. Mortgage is derived from French, it means “death pledge” or “pledge to the death”. If you don’t keep up with the mortgage payments, the bank get you evicted then they sell the house, usually at much less than the market value and if there is a shortfall they still come after you for the remaining mortgage. They don’t lose but you lose everything! In reality, if you need a mortgage to buy a house; you can’t afford it!

What about the people building the houses for sale or rent, where do they get the funds to do so. You guessed it; the bankers! You could say that “without banks, there would be a lot less housing” and you could also say that “if the public purse was used to provide more “social housing”, the banks wouldn’t make as much profit”, both are true of course.

Housing should not be a profit exercise, it is a basic need for everyone.

Housing in an affluent society should be of good quality and there should not be any homeless people. There should not be any one having to sleep rough or “Sofa Surf”. However, we are all individuals and some may prefer to be nomadic and live in “temporary shelter” but generally homeless people don’t choose to be homeless or to “Sofa Surf”, circumstances beyond their control often force them into the homeless situation.

Land ownership is basically fiction or a hoax. The Earth belongs to no one, we should share the land available so that we can all build a comfortable home No one should have any entitlement to larger “parcels” of land. We should all be allocated a “parcel of land” that is a suitable size to provide a home and maybe grow produce to help feed us but with rising population that could be a problem.

Housing should primarily be social housing and be based on rental. As the cost of building the houses is recouped, future rents should go into the housing fund to continue building more houses to cater for the growing population. An allowance being made for those that want to purchase houses via a mortgage (from property developers or the housing market). Joint ownership and self build schemes should be encouraged, where the initial situation is rental but the ownership gradually becomes total ownership by the occupier or remains a shared ownership.

Long term tenants would at some point have paid enough rent to cover the build cost (+ Interest) of the housing and should then be paying rent based on the maintenance costs.

“Community builds” (where members of the community rally together to build homes for each other) should be encouraged The main duty of Town (or community) councils should be to ensure that members of the community have decent and suitable housing and should have the “authority” to allocate land to build housing for the community. The councils should have the authority to ensure that suitable standards are achieved with regard to housing.

Lets not forget that “Town / Community councils” are elected by the people to make sure that the interests of the people are being looked after in a democratic manner. The councils should be making sure that adequate housing for the people is provided and “public services” are run efficiently and cost effectively but it seems we have a “tail wagging the dog” situation where the interests of the people are superseded by the “interests” of the council or the government! Lets not forget that the Government is (in principle) elected by the people for the people!

Maybe we need more people like Titus Salt, Joseph Cadbury, George Peabody etc but the public purse is big enough, if it’s managed properly. There would need to be some protection built-in to prevent the funds being misappropriated to leave a shortfall as has happened with the pension fund, which means we all have to work longer and can’t get a state pension until we’re a lot older!

Home ownership is an enigma.

Generally people buy houses and take the “pledge of death” because they have bought in to the “Investment” idea. They compare paying rent all their lives and ending up with nothing to show for it, with paying a mortgage for 25 or 30 years and then having a pile of bricks and mortar that they can’t take with them when they don their wooden overcoat! But at least, their offspring will benefit! There is nothing wrong with “home ownership” but the land that the home is built on belongs to no one (because the Earth doesn’t have any way to sell any part of it). One of the advantages of “Home Ownership” is being able to “sell up” and buy a different property, maybe to a larger or smaller property. This advantage can be negated by “Social housing exchange” schemes where people find alternative houses in different areas or have maybe more or less bedrooms etc.

As a “home buyer”, you have the expense of maintaining the property (which isn’t yours until you have paid the mortgage in full). Buying a home / property does in deed allow you to potentially profit from “having an investment” but many people find they have “Negative Equity” which means that you are buying a house and will be unable to sell it at a profit. In some cases the equity won’t even cover the mortgage! Housing has become a commodity!

Renting a home from the “Council” can make a lot of sense. The property is maintained by the council to a certain standard but this standard does vary between councils! Generally all repairs are carried out by the council and they usually have some method of allowing a certain amount of “personalisation” in that they allow some modifications to the property as long as this complies with certain standards.

Generally the tenancy is secured and usually there is no concern about the tenancy coming to an abrupt end, provided you adhere to the rental agreement.

Note. The council doesn’t own “social / community” housing! The council are elected by the people and all of the “monies” held by the council are “collectively” the monies of the people / Township, the council are only custodians of the monies who are given the authority to look after the public purse. The monies are obtained by local taxes and rates, some of which goes to the government. The government are also charged with the duty of “looking after the public purse”, in addition to looking after the “defence of the realm”.

In principle, “social / community housing” should be the main stay of housing and there should not be any shortages.

Renting from a “private landlord” can be advantageous but generally you are not offered secured tenancy and the maintenance of the property is not always carried out to any certain standards. “Private Landlords” are mainly renting properties for a profit. Some maintain their properties to a high standard but a lot don’t!

Renting or Buying is debatable and the “land ownership thing” is an Albatross! or “Elephant in the room“. If we take away the “investment” idea, “home ownership” doesn’t make much sense. As we all tend to live in societies / communities we can agree that each person should be allocated a given “plot size” which would enable them to build a suitable home and allow a sufficient area to grow produce.The “plot” would be for the use of the “plot holder” for the duration of their life. The “plot” then would go back into the “social plot pool” to be allocated to someone else. The “plots” would be based on individual needs so a “couple” would be allocated twice the area of the plot, with an allowance for “offspring”.

Social housing should be based on rental and the price of the rent should be based on recouping the building costs over 20 / 25 years, after this time the rent should be reduced to cover the costs of maintenance. The property will at some stage be returned in to the “Social Housing Pool”. If it isn’t “refurbished”, it could be offered as a low rent option because the building cost has been recouped and it only needs to cover the maintenance costs.

Buying a home that doesn’t have the “investment thing” or the “plot size thing” does beg the question of “why buy”, at some stage you won’t need the house / home! In general, people who take out a mortgage will pay 4 or 5 times more than the original purchase price of the house. The banks are basically parasites and know how to fleece people! It’s worth pointing out that if you have a mortgage, you are not really a “home owner”, the people who are lending you the money are the “real” owners until you have paid the last penny of the loan / mortgage. However, in this Topsy turfy world “home owners” are people who have “gone through the “legal process” of purchasing a home (property) but the fact that the “home owners” don’t actually have the funds to pay for the dwelling appear to be “fudged”. Of course, there are some situations where the “Home Owner” does actually have the funds to pay for the dwelling (no mortgage required) but that isn’t a normal situation.

It’s likely that houses that are “being bought” by the occupiers will be kept in better condition and there is a lower chance of the occupiers living in a sh*thole because they will want to keep the value of the property as high as possible. There we go on the slippery slope, housing is a basic need not a profit exercise!

Social housing should not be seen as a “stigma”, it should be the defacto standard. In the modern world, we can’t just build a home wherever we like. The “land ownership thing” prevents people from choosing a location of choice for their home. The population of the world has increased considerably and the “common land” available to built homes has become a premium. It is no longer acceptable to have a few “privileged people” having huge mansions and several acres of land. We all need to have a home and as we live in societies, the “Elected Council” should have the responsibility of providing “social housing” for the “public”. We all currently live in “Townships” and pay taxes and “rates” to the “Town Council”. The “Town Council” is basically elected by the people of the Township to make sure that the “interests” of the Township are looked after, in a democratic manner. The Town Council have access to things like Census records, Births, Marriage and Death records, these records should enable any Town Council to anticipate the likely need of future housing of the Township. There is no rational excuse for the Town Councils to claim that they are not aware of the housing needs. We all need somewhere to live that is warm and gives protection from the elements but in the modern (affluent) world, we can do better than “basic” shelter! In this modern world, we can provide housing that is basically 5 star and is comfortable and eco friendly. The people of our Townships need to make sure that the (elected) Town Councils do their job and housing is high on the agenda. Social housing should be the de facto situation (the Norm). Housing is a basic need and should not be a “profit exercise”

Social housing should be:-

The leader in eco – friendly and energy efficient homes because the cost is (initially) coming out of the public purse.
Adaptable and provide more than just the basic need of protection from the elements.
Suitably spacious, not cramped and pokey. Space based on number of occupants.
Desirable for most people. (cost next to nothing to keep warm and pass surplus energy to the grid)
Customizable to suit the occupiers “nature”. (within reason)
Affordable even for the low paid. (Vital)
Community minded, encourage good neighbourly behavior.
Designed to encourage steps toward self sufficiency with community gardens and maybe vertical farms!
The de facto standard as this allows the housing to be passed on to others, when the time is right!

Conclusion

There should never be any housing shortages in an affluent society. Public funded social housing should be the main stay of housing and it should always be the leader in eco friendly and energy efficiency.

We need to root out and remove the greed and share the wealth!

We need to be fully aware that houses don’t improve with age and actually deteriorate so in reality they “lose value” but in the Topsy turfy world that we live in, this is reversed. In reality, it is the price of land that has increased due to “supply and demand” .

It is very unlikely that we can remove the “Land Ownership thing” so we will have to rely on “Town Councils” to acquire the land (maybe by compulsory purchase) to make land available for building an adequate supply of desirable social housing, that leads the way in energy efficient housing.

The housing should be adaptable to suit individuality so that we don’t have the “little boxes made of ticky tacky and all look the same” mentality. However, having “standardisations” does help keep costs down and it does help reduce cost of maintenance but much can still be done to remove the “all look the same” aspect.

“Social housing” should cover self and community builds, the land needed for these projects should be provided by the “council”.

Social housing has the benefit of being passed on to future generations. We all need housing / somewhere to live and call home because it is a basic need. Some would be happy to just have a roof over their heads that provides a comfortable and warm home. People with growing families would probably want the same but with extra space. The “Land Ownership thing” is a biggie, the Earth belongs to no one so why should the affluent be allowed to have more “land” than those who are not affluent. Housing is a basic need and should never be a profit exercise. Homes for everyone should be suitably spacious and comfortable, ideally our homes would have a “plot size” that would be adequate for growing vegetables etc to provide food.

Housing is an enigma but it shouldn’t be. Housing is a basic need and should not be a profit exercise. Good quality spacious and energy efficient housing should be the de facto standard for everyone. In an affluent country like Britain, homelessness and poverty should be a thing of the past. We need to look to the future and make sure that our future generations will have adequate and suitable housing. We need to share the wealth and share the land.

“Land Ownership” will always be “the Elephant in the room” because the Earth doesn’t have any method of “Selling or purchasing land”. The Earth belongs to no one and humans are basically parasites that rob the planet of its resources and give nothing in return. 8 Billion humans could be seen as an infestation, we all need housing and we all need to be fed. We could come up with a “formula” for “allocating” land based on “plot size” for individuals, this would allow a suitably sized home to be constructed and have some allowance for space to grow produce. However, due to the constantly rising population this would probably not work. In addition there would need to be some sort of agreed “plot size” for farmers to grow produce and / or raise livestock to fed us all.

Housing for the masses is definitely an enigma and isn’t something that has a simple solution but removing housing from the “profit / investment” arena would help. Removing the “land ownership thing” would also help. Reducing our population would also help.

Housing should never be an enigma, it is a basic need. Homelessness should never exist

Poverty, in affluent societies, should not exist. Homelessness and poverty in the modern world means we are are failed societies.

Having a handful of “Billionaires” and quite a lot of people living in poverty means we are a failed society.

In an affluent society, like the UK, Homelessness, Poverty and Food banks should not exist. The fact that they do means we are a failed society that is “controlled” by the people with the most wealth and “own” most of the land.

In all societies, we need to address the “Land Ownership” thing. In an ever increasing population, (fictitious) “land ownership” needs to be addressed. Social housing should be the de facto standard where the housing is comfortable and spacious and requires a minimal cost to keep warm (or cool). Housing should be “Planet Friendly” and should not have impact on or Planet. Building materials should be renewable and sustainable