|
Donnie-B
Registered: May 2012 Posts: 4133 - Threads: 366 Location: London
|
Quote:
| ceekay wrote on 23-05-2016 02:25 PM
If you want it to stay affordable housing, then neither. Because market rates are falsely inflated and that makes the resale value also falsely inflated.
|
|
They can't make any profit at all? That's a bit communist
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
23-05-2016 14:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Donnie-B
Registered: May 2012 Posts: 4133 - Threads: 366 Location: London
|
Quote:
| voodoobass wrote on 23-05-2016 02:36 PM
True affordable housing is not the same as taking any housing and making it 'affordable' through subsidy. True 'affordable' housing is where it has been built to a budget that satisfies a certain unit cost - meaning that the buyer is paying a price that covers the land, the construction of four walls and a roof, and a fair daily wage for everyone involved in the construction thereof.
...but if your definition of affordable housing is the government giving you 250k toward something that costs 400k then obviously that is not a sustainable or economically sound way to solve the problem... let alone it being 'fair' if the owner then sells for what it's worth. But, IMO there is nothing intrinsically unfair about state subsidies.
|
|
Land costs rise just as housing costs do.
If I were Barratt Homes. Why would I pay top whack for land then sell my assets at a "loss"
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
23-05-2016 15:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may post new threads You may
post replies You may post attachments You
may edit your posts
|
You may delete your posts
HTML code is OFF
BB Code is ON Smilies are ON
|
|
|
|
|