Country or city? Going round the block.

Out walking on Saturday evening I was struck by this view. I only wish I could do it greater justice with a better photo.  This is miles inside the M25 (London orbital motorway for those from outside the UK) looking in the direction of central London. 

The tower blocks are part of the Le Courbusier inspired Alton Estate in Roehampton built in the late 50s as social housing. Some of those flats would have fabulous views over Richmond Park or towards central London. Can you imagine (in the country where a disaster like the Grenfell fire was possible) that any part of the public sector would build housing with views like that now? It wouldn't surprise me if, like much council housing in the UK, many of the units have long since been sold to tenants. Many found their way into the possession of investors who now rent them out to the grandchildren of old tenants, but at market rates. Such is progress. Given when they were built, the public debt has probably long since been paid off, so had they been kept in public ownership, even at below market rents, they could have been earning a surplus for the local authorities whilst serving a social purpose. Even as far back as the 70s, as council rents had gone up with inflation, the income from them must have dwarfed the amounts needed to service the debt. Instead public money is spent giving benefits to help working people pay the rent. So in a way it's gone full circle with 'subsidised rents' but with different beneficiaries of the tax-payers' largesse. 

The house I now live in was also built as a council house in 1920 - part of the post Great War building of 'homes fit for heroes'. The last council tenants who bought the house some time in the 80s would have been of my parents' generation. That generation who were able to buy their council houses or flats (including my own parents) would have had a one-off capital boost having bought them at a good discount from the market value. Councils were not permitted to spend a penny of the capital receipts for the housing stock that they had no say in selling, so they could not replace social housing by building more. We now have the lowest proportion of owner-occupied dwellings for decades in this country. Many well paid young people cannot afford to buy, with properties selling for many multiples of average income. Ironically having a large, state-owned and operated housing stock meant that buying a house was much more affordable for middle income families. With low rents for decent quality housing, the private rented sector was not so lucrative, so privately owned houses and flats were not being snapped up by investors. Now people like us pay three times for the privilege - higher prices on the houses we buy to live in; higher tax to subsidise the market rents of those who can't afford them; and, indirectly, through the loss of financial surpluses on local authorities' housing stock.

Sorry, I went off track a bit there. It all started off with me noticing the juxtaposition of large  mammals doing their thing in front of very urban looking housing.