Require 50% affordable housing in new developments

Housing ● National by LeafyLiberal · 🏷️ 1. Concerned Citizen · Local · 4 months ago
1

The state of housing in our city is dire, with far too many people priced out of even the smallest apartments. It's not uncommon to see entire families crammed into tiny flats, or young professionals forced to share with multiple roommates just to make ends meet. This isn't just a matter of personal finance, either - it's a question of community cohesion and social justice. When people are forced to live in cramped, overpriced conditions, it's a recipe for stress, anxiety, and a whole host of other social problems.

My proposal is to require that at least 50% of all new housing developments be designated as affordable housing. This would mean that for every luxury penthouse or high-end flat, there would be a corresponding number of affordable units available to people on lower incomes. It's not a radical idea, but it would make a huge difference to the thousands of people currently struggling to find a decent place to live.

LeafyLiberal 🔍 Select Committee Chair Local

🌳 The Verdant Future Party

⑂ Sign in to adapt this
Share: Reddit

Discussion (8)

Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.

What's the definition of "affordable" here, because if it's tied to local market rates, nurses and teachers will still be priced out.
3
This sounds like a good start, but I worry it won't be enough. Fifty percent affordable housing is better than what we have now, which is basically nothing for most people, but what counts as "affordable"?

If it's still tied to market rates, then it's not really affordable for nurses or teachers, is it? We need genuinely low rents, not just slightly less eye-watering prices.
1
I was talking to a mate who's a builder and he was saying how the cost of materials is going throught the roof, definately a problem for any new developments, and it got me thinking about the time our distillery had to replace the roof, it was a nightmare, still not sure how that's going to affect the flavour of our whisky, but I suppose that's a seperate issue from affordable housing, although I do wonder if the same supply chain problems will affect the cost of building these new homes.
0
Someone was saying the other day about how building regulations can sometimes inadvertently increase carbon emissions by requiring certain materials that are more energy-intensive to produce. I wonder if there are similar unintended environmental consequences to mandating such a high percentage of affordable units, beyond just the economics.
0
This sounds like a supply and demand issue, and forcing 50% affordable housing isn't gonna fix it. Developers aren't charities, they're gonna pass the cost onto the other units.

We saw this happen when they tried to force more affordable units in that new build estate near Slough a few years back. The market rate houses shot up in price to compensate, meaning no one could afford those either. It just pushes the problem around.
0
The policy to require 50% affordable housing in new developments is well-intentioned but I think it overlooks the practicalities of development costs. I've seen this play out in our village where a small development of 20 homes was supposed to include 5 affordable units, but the developer ended up having to increase the price of the other 15 homes to cover the costs.

This just priced out the local young families who were hoping to buy a starter home, so it didn't really help the people it was meant to. I worry that this policy would have a similar effect, with the cost of the affordable units being passed on to the other buyers, which could end up hurting the very people it's trying to help. It's a bit like what happened with my mum's care home, where the costs just get shifted around.
0
What happens to the cost of the other 50% if developers are forced to subsidise half the build?
0
It's a fair question. If developers have to build cheaper units, they'll likely try and recoup that elsewhere, pushing up prices for the market-rate homes. We saw something similar with that new estate near Perth; the houses ended up costing a fortune.
1

Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →