With thanks to retired MHK Peter Karran for a great catchphrase that doesn't involve white elephants coming home to roost!
Full disclosure time: I'm a life-long capitalist. I believe that if you work hard and are able to save some money, you should be entitled to spend it or invest it as you see fit. But there's an affordable housing crisis that overrides that philosophy.
“ Can anyone on a modest income actually afford 'affordable' housing on the Isle of Man?"
The average price of a home on the Isle of Man is now apparently over £300,000. Almost a third of a million pounds! If you're a first-time buyer, how can you ever hope to get on the housing ladder?
Save up and go without, like we did: That seems to be a comment made by people of my generation (the cool boomers!) in response to complaints about the current housing market. Sure, there ARE homes for under £300k, but unless you can live with parents for free the chances are you're renting. If you're renting in the private sector, you can forget about saving much towards a mortgage deposit. And would your income even support a significant mortgage?
Starter homes: There's lots of talk about the need for more starter homes, and whether they should be built on brownfield sites rather than in the countryside. But that's missing the point. I believe that many new 'affordable' homes are bought by investors on a buy-to-let basis, which pushes up prices and reduces availability. That needs legislation to change. In my opinion, affordable homes should only be sold to owner occupiers, and should only be re-sold to owner occupiers.
Empty properties: I've been surprised whilst tramping the streets begging for votes by the number of empty houses there seem to be in Middle. Some are approaching dereliction, which is a travesty. Of course, some may be owners who spend long periods of time off-island, others might be going through probate or legal dispute. But I suspect that many have been bought as investments or as a way of getting funds offshore. I'm not keen on government interference, but with a clear housing crisis maybe it's time to look at these properties to make sure many working people aren't disadvantaged for the benefit of the wealthy.
Social housing: Politicians have been talking for years about means testing, and I think there may have been some progress in shorter tenancy agreements that can at least be reviewed every five years. But we still have a legacy problem where (for example) you have one person living in a 4-bedroom house long after their family has fled the nest. I believe in social housing, but it should be used as intended, which is to provide appropriate, decent homes for people who can't afford to buy or rent privately. It shouldn't be a cheap option for people with plenty of money - certainly not when more deserving tenants are on waiting lists.
And please, isn't about time we also started seriously discussing retirement housing, alongside the other housing issues? Yes, it is! People who have worked all their lives and paid into our economy deserve better.
“ But in promoting affordable housing, let's not destroy the existing housing market”
Part of the problem (or so I'm told) is that Government owns much of the brownfield land that COULD be used for affordable housing development, but they want to sell it for top dollar to people with big ideas and lots of money. But these plots are exactly where lots of young people would like to live - often close to shops and amenities - and with the younger generations moving into the built up areas where most brownfield sites are, the whole micro-economy of that area transforms as businesses spring up to satisfy that demographics demands. It's so fundamentally obvious it really makes you question why this hasn't already happened. What is it that is stopping Government acting NOW?
We could easily build hundreds of new starter homes without turning the Island into a concrete jungle (look at Google Earth to see how much of it is still jungle with only the occasional patch of concrete). How about self-build plots - it's worked before. How about relaxing planning rules to allow more exciting alternative homes - log cabins, converted shipping containers. I'm a renter and would love to buy something like that if it was truly affordable.
But we also need to be cautious not to destroy the existing housing market, even though many long-term homeowners will have seen their property value increase by a staggering amount over the last 20-30 years. To many, the equity in their homes is a hedge against an uncertain future and a key part of their retirement planning, and any new schemes shouldn't compromise that.
There are government schemes, but do they go far enough? Last time I checked they seemed unnecessarily prescriptive and confusing. If property is such a good investment, why not spend more of our significant Treasury reserves in shared-ownership housing? First time buyers could afford a 50% mortgage for c£125-150,000. Government could either buy the rest, a great investment with a return we all benefit from (somewhat different to other schemes like the film industry!), or at least act as guarantor to the mortgage lender. Then, when the buyers earnings hit an agreed amount, they can start buying the rest of their home.
There ARE solutions to what is undeniably a housing crisis. The new MHKs, of which I do hope to be one with your support, need to demand answers and action. That's one thing I certainly won't be afraid to do...
If you got this far – thanks for reading. Please do have a look at other pages and articles on my website or 'Stu Peters for Middle on Facebook' and if what I am saying resonates with you, please use the email sign up function or feel free to email me with any questions or concerns: stupeters@manx.net
Best wishes
Stu
Comments