Do we still need council houses?
T HERE is a philosophical debate being had, in council chambers up and down the country, as to what the role of a local authority should be in 21st century Britain. On one side of the argument are the modernisers, who believe that a council should, above anything else, be using its unique position to assist private enterprise in every way possible, to regenerate our local economies. On the other is the traditionalists, who reckon a council should hang on to long-established and socially-important services such as caring for our old folks, emptying our bins – and managing thousands of council houses. The elected representatives of Stoke-on-Trent have, to a greater or lesser extent, always chosen to take the latter route. In truth, their Mandate 4 Change document shows that they would also very much like to follow the modernisers' road of helping economic restructuring. But that is dependant on future backing from public purse schemes such as the Government's City Deal, which is by no means guaranteed.
W hat is guaranteed though, is that in buying its own housing stock from the Government, the city council has taken a huge risk. It could have handed the 19,000 properties over to acknowledged social housing experts such as Epic Housing, Staffordshire Housing or Aspire. Instead, it has chosen to keep its council houses... and the £1bn bill for repairs and maintenance the properties will need in the next three decades. Some will see the council's decision as brave, based on a view that the houses are an appreciating asset. Others will point out that the council still needs to go cap-in-hand to the Government for (rapidly diminishing) grants to look after the houses. The assets could easily become liabilities. So... you pay your money, you take your choice. In the 21st century, should it be the job of elected representatives – essentially, enthusiastic, well-intentioned amateurs – to collect millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to manage a city-wide social housing estate? We sincerely hope that, for the sake of Stoke-on-Trent, our councillors know what they are doing.
****Best Deals**** Van Insurance for 17-24 Yr Old Drivers - Contact Insure365 on 01782 898188
Terms: 1 Voucher Per Customer
Contact: 01782 898188
Valid until: Friday, July 19 2013
Comments
by nobbynextdoor
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 7:05PM
“Yes I understand all that, I wish I could have the houses and I bet so does Aspire and the others.”
by Robnoxious
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 1:23PM
“Breaking the figures down that have been quoted, the average spend per council house repair of £28,626-00, which equates to £954-16p a year over the 30 year period. The rent increase that has recently been approved is £72-85p a week, which in total brings in revenue of £3,788-20p a year. Times that amount collected in by 30 years = £113,646-00p. So over a 30 year period taking away the spend on maintenance/repairs [ £28,626-00 ] there will be a profit of £85,020-00p on each council property, potentially, if they can collect the rent. Or £2,834-04p profit per year council property. The spend on maintenance at today's figures equates to 25.188% of council rent income. 19,100 properties , times profit per year = £54,130.164-00p. Over £50 million profit, after spend, times 30 years = £1623,904,920-00p. Over £1.6 billion profit. also not included in this, renting of garages. But a quick add up of figures quoted on the front page yesterday suggested spend to be in the region of £908 million, which is £342 million less than the £1,25 billion quoted total bill. The £28,626-00p maintenance/ repair , 19,100 properties = £545,756 thousand, well short of the £1 billion quoted. The total income before spend on these properties, excluding rent for garages etc, based at £72-85 over a 30 year period of 19,100 properties is £2,170,638,860-00p approx. Should they get all the money owing in rent. If you are able to understand this, there are big anomalies in figures and spend in what has been quoted in the sentinel, although the references do seem to come from councillors. The figures not adding up, looks like there will be some more missing millions, or nearly half a billion over a 30 year period, what a shock that is, NOT. Perverse the Purse. Now it is beginning to add up.”