Housing

This research looks at the prevalence and impact of low-use housing for England, Wales and Scotland. Our map of what we’ve called “ghost enclaves” – the most concentrated areas of low-use properties – suggests that this is almost exclusively a coastal phenomenon. It effectively outlines the island of Great Britain in red.

[…]

In the ghost enclaves that topped our ranking, low-use homes account for between 34% and 54% of the local housing stock. These areas include Trawsfynnydd and New Quay in Wales; St Ives, Padstow, Grasmere and Benthall in England; and Earlsferry and Millport in Scotland. 

[…] 

We also interviewed 66 experts and campaigners across the UK: housing and planning officials, policy experts, campaigners, residents, councillors and politicians at local and national levels, plus trade body representatives.

They described how second homes and short-term lets have hollowed out many communities. Demand for essential services like schools has reduced as a result. Year-round social infrastructure, such as pubs and cafes, has withered due to the outsized seasonal demand followed by long fallow periods. Communities feel significant resentment.

Our findings chime with census data showing that Londoners are increasingly buying investment properties in the national parks and coastal areas of the south-west. Similarly, affluent households in the north-west of England are buying second homes in north Wales.

One planner we interviewed said any benefits from increasing housing development in rural areas (a policy that many support) – including releasing more land for housing and allowing rural exception sites, barn conversions and developments on small “pocket” sites (such as in a garden or between houses) – are essentially cancelled out by people turning existing stock into Airbnbs, holiday lets and second homes. “And we have no planning control over that,” one planner explained. They likened the whole exercise to filling the bath with the plug pulled out. 

This is spectacularly dysfunctional.

It’s not just historic flats from Britain’s postwar housebuilding boom that are being sold. Brand new council houses are also going under the hammer, almost as fast as they are being built. Design blog Dezeen revealed this month that seven of Norwich’s newest council homes are already in the process of being sold off, fewer than five years after they were completed. Other authorities have also been forced to sell their new council homes, such as Hackney in east London, which has already lost some of the social housing it built in Stoke Newington in 2018.

Despite right to buy being so destructive to public finances that it has been abolished in Scotland and Wales, Labour has announced it will keep Thatcher’s policy if it wins the next general election. This U-turn, backtracking on the party’s previous two manifestos, which promised to suspend sell-offs, has bitterly disappointed many local politicians who are desperate for change.

[…]

It’s hardly surprising most councils are not building many homes at all, given they are obliged to sell them at a discount almost as soon as the paint is dry. Would you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds building a new house to rent out if your tenants could force you to flog it to them for less than it cost to construct, just three years later? According to research from UCL, right to buy “remains the major disincentive to local authorities building more social rent homes” as the majority of councils rightly fear the policy will impact any new housing developments they undertake.

Instead, many authorities have launched schemes to cling on to as much of their remaining stock as possible. Some offer grants to incentivise council tenants to buy on the open market instead of via right to buy. Wandsworth, in south-west London, for instance, will chip in up to £120,000 towards helping their tenants purchase a home “within the UK or anywhere else in the world”, provided it is not a council property.

Climate and housing are vitally connected, and acknowledging this turns a pair of calamities into one huge opportunity.

That’s the message from the national Task Force for Housing and Climate, a cross-partisan group of former politicians and policy experts that launched in September and released their final report on March 5. The non-governmental task force convened fifteen heavy hitters from across the country, including former Conservative cabinet minister Lisa Raitt and Edmonton’s progressive former mayor Don Iveson as co-chairs, as well as economist and former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney and former Toronto chief city planner Jennifer Keesmaat. The group has created a road map for 5.8 million “affordable, low-carbon and resilient” homes to be built by 2030.

[…] 

If all this sounds wildly optimistic, somewhere between wartime effort and fever dream on the scale of probabilities, well, so is the fight against climate change. One could take heart from the fact that, last fall, housing minister Fraser told the CBC “this is a wartime effort we need to adopt.” There’s also the fact that the debate over housing policy hasn’t suffered the same partisan warping that afflicts climate policy. Nobody in Canada is arguing the housing crisis is a hoax or wildly overblown; instead, every party is now competing to prove it has the best, most aggressive solution.

Ah, private equity; is there any bad situation you can't make much, much worse?

In the midst of an affordable housing crunch and with yearslong Section 8 voucher waitlists, manufactured homes tend to be a more affordable option compared with traditional site-built houses, particularly for seniors and low-income households. A factory-built home can be a steppingstone for families pursuing homeownership or the last stop before falling into homelessness. But advocates say manufactured housing is quickly becoming unaffordable as private equity firms buy up parks and raise rents. In some cases, it’s unclear who owns the lots, making it easier for maintenance problems to go unaddressed.

[…] 

A household that lives in a manufactured home may own the structure but rent the land on which it sits. For many, “mobile” may be a misnomer.

“It's difficult, expensive or outright impossible to move these homes and so residents are forced to tolerate escalating rents, arbitrary fees, lack of transparency in billing and failure to invest in the maintenance of park properties, all which contribute to their housing insecurity,” said Esther Sullivan, a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Denver, at the Senate committee hearing.

[…]

“It's really frustrating as someone who has spent time in social services for so long to not be able to help people, particularly when they're in your city and you should have some jurisdiction over situations like these, where the living conditions are compromising the residents’ health, safety and well-being. We should be able to do something and hold those people accountable,” said Warren City Council President Angela Rogensues, who spearheaded the nuisance complaint.

Rogensues told state lawmakers last month that many parks are in “tremendous disrepair.” She reported seeing residents dealing with rat infestation, trees growing through trailers, trip hazards and trailers filled with garbage in 2022. Rogensues said she reached out to city and state departments and was told they didn’t have jurisdiction over mobile home parks. The city cannot test to regulate the water once it enters the park, she said, meaning the owner is responsible for the water quality. 

“Renters of mobile homes and even owners of mobile homes do not fall into a category I can regulate or enforce,” she told lawmakers.

The residents of dozens of public housing towers in the southern Australian city of Melbourne heard the state government was planning to demolish their homes on the news.

“Everyone found out from the TV, from the news, with the rest of Victoria,” Sara*, a resident of the first group of towers to be knocked down, told Al Jazeera.

[…] 

The government says the renewal will boost “social housing by at least 10 percent”, a modest increase in a city where there is already a huge gap in affordable housing.

According to Australian census data, the percentage of Australian households who rent their home from a state or territory housing authority dropped from 6 percent in 1999-2000 to 3 percent in 2019-2020.

In the state of Victoria, the share of housing classified as public or community housing, is just 2.8 percent.

By comparison, in Paris and Vienna, the share of public housing has increased since the 1990s, with about 25 percent of the population of both cities now living in socially-rented housing.

This is just great.

Housing is an investment. And investment prices must go up. Housing is shelter. When the price of shelter goes up, people experience distress. Housing can’t be both a good investment and broadly affordable—yet we insist on both. This is the housing trap.

In response to rent increases, the Texas capital experimented with the uncommon strategy of actually building enough homes for people to live in. This year, Austin is expected to add more apartment units as a share of its existing inventory than any other city in the country. Again as a share of existing inventory, Austin is adding homes more than twice as fast as the national average and nearly nine times faster than San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. (You read that right: nine times faster.)

The results are spectacular for renters and buyers. The surge in housing supply, alongside declining inbound domestic migration, has led to falling rents and home prices across the city. Austin rents have come down 7 percent in the past year.

One could celebrate this report as a win for movers. Or, if you’re The Wall Street Journal, you could treat the news as a seriously frightening development.

“Once America’s Hottest Housing Market, Austin Is Running in Reverse,” announced the headline of the top story on the WSJ website on Monday. The article illustrated “Austin’s recent downswing” and its “glut of luxury apartment buildings” with photographs of abandoned downtown plazas, as if the fastest-growing city of the 2010s had been suddenly hollowed out by a plague and left to zombies and tumbleweeds.

[…]

If homeownership is best understood as an investment, like equities, we should root for prices to go up. If housing is an essential good, like food and clothing, we should cheer when prices stay flat—or even when they fall. Instead, many Americans seem to think of a home as existing in a quantum superposition between a present-day necessity and a future asset.

This magical thinking isn’t just a phenomenon of real-estate reporting. It is deeply rooted even in the highest echelons of policy making.

California State Assembly member Lee is one of a small number of voices leading calls for a new social-housing programme to alleviate America's severe housing-affordability problems.

[…]

"This idea that the government shouldn't be doing certain things is one of these weird, subconscious beliefs that a lot of Americans have," he continued.

"If we tried to create public libraries, public schools, and social security today, it would probably be labelled as some great Marxist scheme."

[…]

"I think more people are coming around to the idea that the current system of housing we have is fundamentally broken," Lee said.

"Anyone who says that just doing a little bit of that and a little bit of this fix to it is, I think, completely wrong."

Lee is doubtful that it will be possible to increase housing supply sufficiently to improve affordability through the market alone – where the profit motive means there is little incentive to bring rents and house prices down.

"The free market is working as intended today, where sky-high rent prices and housing prices are driving people away from their home communities – that's the market at work," he said.

"Without an intervention of the public sector, which we want through social housing, there cannot be a solution entirely to the housing crisis."

Social indicator alert:

Women and children in New South Wales are being offered a car park to sleep in overnight as part of a pilot program aimed at keeping those experiencing homelessness and domestic violence safe.

The program is being run by an organisation in Newcastle, which has not disclosed its name, for fear of giving away the location. But Nova, the housing assistance service for women and children fleeing domestic violence, has been referring people to the pilot, which began in April and will run until June.

It comes as the NSW government announced on Friday it would develop an urgent emergency package within days to address the domestic violence crisis in the state.

The “Women in Cars” project, offers those staying in the car park food and drink, showers, toilets, laundry, kitchen facilities and access to television. Dogs are allowed and security and support is also on site.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the housing crisis could be solved without building any more homes? There would be no carbon emissions from construction sites, no green fields covered over, no householders upset at dwellings appearing in their view. Instead, rents would become affordable and decent homes available through changes in government policy. Such is the promise of Against Landlords by the author and barrister Nick Bano, a man who has been described as “Britain’s top Marxist housing lawyer”.

[…]

Bano would like to return, with due allowance for the fact that public housing of the time was sometimes less than perfect, to the 1970s to complete the project of driving “landlords and house-price speculators from the face of the earth”. He wants to reinstate rent controls and end no-fault evictions. It’s not entirely clear how people currently privately renting would then be housed (though it seems likely that they would become tenants of the state), or how the transition would be effected. He acknowledges that it might be a brutal process, given the dependency of the national economy on property values, perhaps involving a monumental property crash.

Bano’s arguments have already taken a bit of a battering, both from more centrist commentators and, doubtless to his delight, from the rightwing thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs (“an edgy Maoist rebel”, it called him). These critics question, with some reason, his basis for saying that there are enough homes, in light of the fact that studies tend to show that Britain has the smallest new-build homes in Europe.