Somethings Not Right Here

[MynameisLuca]

Some people with well paid Jobs can't afford a mortgage in the area they work in, so they have to buy/rent in the sticks, then drive 2 or more hours a day getting to and from work. Then there are people who are not working living in free houses from the council, where the people commuting for over 2 hours a day 5 days a week would love to live.. Do you think things should be reversed?
Do you think unemploymed council tenents should be moved out of the cities?

[johnny.5]

and what about the retired why should they live in workers areas ?
and if you live in a council house and have worked hard all your life spent money on maintaining and gardening the house and were to be made redundant then out you get !?

[tonyav]

Some people with well paid Jobs can't afford a mortgage in the area they work in, so they have to buy/rent in the sticks

If you mean the London area then you are probably right, however some of the better area's to live are not in the city ( any city ) and it's worth living a few hours commute away in the suburbs.

[MynameisLuca]

Retired people can live wherever they want, no need for them to live in the city, if they're in a 3 bedroom council house they should be moved /downsized, you don't own the house Jonny, you're a tenant, renting from the council and they take care of the maintenance for you.
Yes Tonyv, but it's not pleasant having to commute 10 hours or more a week.

[tonyav]

Then there are people who are not working living in free houses from the council,

No such thing as free, rent has to be payed.

[THECORBYLOON]

Why can they not find work closer to home?

[THECORBYLOON]

What if someone were only recently unemployed and receiving help with rent or council tax?

How long would you let them be unemployed before evicting them? How would you decide should has priority in getting their house.

Where would the former occupants be moved to? What if the employment prospects were worse there?

Would unemployed folk have to face the prospect of moving up and down the country as "more deserving" employed folk moved up the waiting list for their home?

[MynameisLuca]

Anyone who's on benifets gets everything free, people who have never done a day's work in life get everything handed to them.

I don't think people with skills would be able to get a job in their field in a rural /semi-rural area.

The dossers should be moved from the City areas, say, unemployed for 5 years and off you go to the countryside.

[MynameisLuca]

"employed folk moved up the waiting list for their home?"

Yes, absolutely.

[johnny.5]

so house is just a house ??
it should never be your home ?

[Canary42]

Start by banning "second homes" - that would free up more than enough to solve the homeless problem.

[david small]

Who said life was fair?

[emmie]

what if those tenants had worked all their lives, so paid a small fortune in rents for their social housing.
like me for instance, i have lived here all my adult life, friends here, not family, but a life here, do you suppose at the age of x one would want to be uprooted, i find your post quite absurd and resent the implications that social housing tenants are somehow scroungers who could be shoved out of the way. It's called by the way social cleansing, not nice, what next ethnic cleansing...

[Maydup]

I live in the sticks and there is social housing for local people here, just as there is social housing for people in cities. Its all relevant, you move the the country, local countryside people struggle to afford a mortgage and have to move to seaside towns. We dont like the property prices being inflated by city people anymore than you like the situation in the city.

[emmie]

social housing has been depleted over the years, not enough is being built. we do have surplus housing though, many properties are left empty by the landlords, these could be utilised by those who need a home, like the homeless and those necessary workers like nurses...

[douglas9401]

Mynameismao.

[Gromit]

Some strange assumptions in the question.

If they are well paid, they can live where they want to, they have a choice.

Most council houses have employed tenants.

Most rich people do not want to live in the inner cities.

Houses outside London are cheaper, so you get more house for your money by not living in London.

The suburbs were built exactly to accommodate the better off London worker.

Train and road infrastructure into London are also top quality, for the purpose of richer people commuting to work.

[Maydup]

^^^^ Exactly, and you can substitute LONDON for any city or large town.

[Old_Geezer]

If one owns something then it's not the government's to dictate what you must do with it. And we don't need tyrannical States telling us what we spend on. Sometimes I think some don't like being in a free country and want to be dictated to.

Yes it's a pain not to be able to work near anywhere one can afford to buy or rent as home. But that's poor town planning for you. All areas should have sufficient employment nearby and a variety of housing types to suit all who need to be in the area. Blame the authorities not look for individuals to scapegoat.

[Gromit]

Let's go with your argument and set up a house swap scheme. Let a well pad earner take over the tenancy of an inner city, and let the city dweller move into their country home.
Do you think there would be many takers from the well off?

[davebro]

My estate is a mix of private & social housing. I noticed that the introduction of the "bedroom tax" led to some 3/4 bed houses occupied by couples (empty nesters) being re-let to families with children.