Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBaldBastard
I'm not fully versed on the UK problem, but after a quick glimpse at that article is seems the same as Sydney. Public housing was built in poor suburbs, because that's where it's needed the most. Over time the city spreads and those poor suburbs become very rich suburbs, houses that were built for thousands of dollars are all of a sudden worth many millions due to their location. Some of these places have people who have lived in them for 30 years plus! all on Government hand outs. Often the amount deducted from their benefit would of been more than enough to payout the mortgage if the tenant had purchased it at the start. When they have lived their for 30 years.. they certainly do consider the places their homes: Do note.. they're all whingeing long term social benefit pricks. ;)
New public housing needs to be built in new shitty suburbs and they are funding a lot of it by selling off those inner city houses where often the prices fetched, can build 4 or more new houses. Boohoo to anyone that's lived there 30 years.
|
A similar thing is happening in Melbourne, but there's something else to consider: to build those "poor people" flats, the government needed a lot of land, and much of it was acquired by force. I did some research and calculated that over 300 houses were demolished to build high rise flats in inner city Melbourne in the 1960s. Some guy in a suit determined that an entire block of privately owned homes should be razed in order to build public housing. If those homes still existed today they would be immensely valuable.