£1 houses: Britain's Cheapest Street
Discussion
rsbmw said:
Ha, saw this was on but didn't realist it was Wavertree. I also lived there as a student, between 2003-2006 I suppose. Never had an issue with the area, Few Red Erik's in Kellys Dispensary, dinner in Lau's or the Chippery and mooch home. I did live at the 'decent' end though, a couple of houses off Garmoyle and one the other side of the main road just off Penny Lane
quality, im ex garmoyle and arundel avenue!Giving away free, taxpayer-subsidized houses to people with ~£60k cash in their bank account is:
a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
Yipper said:
Giving away free, taxpayer-subsidized houses to people with ~£60k cash in their bank account is:
a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
These are undesirable houses in total state. Doing this my regenerate the area and bring some more housesing stock up to a decent spec.a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
Yipper said:
Giving away free, taxpayer-subsidized houses to people with ~£60k cash in their bank account is:
a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
What a load of ba) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
ks. They are derelict houses. They need to have £10k and a way to fund the balance as the houses are completely shagged. What’s your proposal? Let them fall down?
Yipper said:
Giving away free, taxpayer-subsidized houses to people with ~£60k cash in their bank account is:
a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
Ok - give them to people who don't have two pennies to rub together.a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
How do you propose such people fund the renovation required to bring these properties up to a livable standard.
This is as much about regenerating a deprived area as it is about supplying affordable housing. It's no good having an affordable house if it falls down around your ears.
By encouraging cash into the area - the hope is that it drives regeneration.
Moonhawk said:
Ok - give them to people who don't have two pennies to rub together.
How do you propose such people fund the renovation required to bring these properties up to a livable standard.
This is as much about regenerating a deprived area as it is about supplying affordable housing. It's no good having an affordable house if it falls down around your ears.
By encouraging cash into the area - the hope is that it drives regeneration.
ignore him mate.How do you propose such people fund the renovation required to bring these properties up to a livable standard.
This is as much about regenerating a deprived area as it is about supplying affordable housing. It's no good having an affordable house if it falls down around your ears.
By encouraging cash into the area - the hope is that it drives regeneration.
i think its a really good punt for both parties (buyers and the council). the council isnt losing anything, gets more tax in and there is a chance it will invigorate the area. if not, they are still up.
the buyers get to take an interesting punt that may or may not pay off, its private property purchase and nothing is guaranteed, anywhere.
i wish them well but for the punt to pay off it will involve most likely years of hell in a god awful area. if you have 10’s of k in the bank and are working like they all are, i cant see how putting a big lumper down on a 150k house in a better area and taking on a relatively small mortgage wouldnt equate to an overall happier existence.
dreams of free equity are nice but the cost of that in the short to medium term is mega...
If the choice is putting your £60k into a property twice the price but in a nicer area or sticking it all into a quid property in a terrible area then I think I'd choose the former. Yeah you still have a mortgage but if the latter fails you've lost your savings and you'll be stuck with a house you can't sell in an area that's horrendous?
Oakey said:
If the choice is putting your £60k into a property twice the price but in a nicer area or sticking it all into a quid property in a terrible area then I think I'd choose the former. Yeah you still have a mortgage but if the latter fails you've lost your savings and you'll be stuck with a house you can't sell in an area that's horrendous?
The rules set are they have a specific time frame to complete the renovations and everything has to be signed off by the council inspector, fail to meet the requirements and you lose the house and forefit any monies you have spent up to that point.Saleen836 said:
The rules set are they have a specific time frame to complete the renovations and everything has to be signed off by the council inspector, fail to meet the requirements and you lose the house and forefit any monies you have spent up to that point.
you could sink 60k with everything signed off and still potentially have something virtually worthless. the punt is that the scheme majorly takes off and you have a 120k house in a community of people with similar values. Mrs9 tells me that her mate who owns one parks her leased (so I assume new) Audi on the street there...
I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
dom9 said:
Mrs9 tells me that her mate who owns one parks her leased (so I assume new) Audi on the street there...
I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
not at all surprised by the leased audi, these people are speculators and arent on the bones of their arse. for the greater good of the area i hope they win but there arent any guarantees...I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
rsbmw said:
Ha, saw this was on but didn't realist it was Wavertree. I also lived there as a student, between 2003-2006 I suppose. Never had an issue with the area, Few Red Erik's in Kellys Dispensary, dinner in Lau's or the Chippery and mooch home. I did live at the 'decent' end though, a couple of houses off Garmoyle and one the other side of the main road just off Penny Lane
Same (LJMU 02-07) I lived just the other side of Sefton Park. dom9 said:
Mrs9 tells me that her mate who owns one parks her leased (so I assume new) Audi on the street there...
I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
I thought they did relocate the residents? the whole area was due to be razed to the ground and rebuilt but government funding was cancelled so the houses were just left to rot for 10 odd years.I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
Saleen836 said:
dom9 said:
Mrs9 tells me that her mate who owns one parks her leased (so I assume new) Audi on the street there...
I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
I thought they did relocate the residents? the whole area was due to be razed to the ground and rebuilt but government funding was cancelled so the houses were just left to rot for 10 odd years.I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff