Housing Policies: What To Think?

So here's Livingstone's, published on Monday, Johnson's, published on 17th March, and Paddick's much shorter effort, published, alas, to widespread indifference. Team Ken, you'll have spotted, is making much of Johnson's pledge to scrap the "50% affordable" rule imposed on the boroughs by Livingstone. But how do the different policies really stack up against each other? I'm still trying to work that out. Seeking clues, I've discovered that on Monday the Empty Homes Agency issued all candidates with a challenge:

CAMPAIGNERS CHALLENGE LONDON MAYORAL CANDIDATES TO PLEDGE ACTION ON EMPTY HOMES

The Empty Homes Agency today throws down the gauntlet to the contenders for the London mayoralty on empty homes. In an open letter to the candidates from the main parties, the EHA invites them to respond to its five-point London Empty Homes Challenge.

The London Empty Homes Challenge asks candidates whether they will pledge to do five things to help bring back into use the capital’s 86,000 empty homes and make better use of other under-used buildings to accommodate Londoners’ housing needs. The Challenge asks candidates whether they will:

1. Set an ambitious target to cut empty homes in London.

2. Prioritise action to tackle empty property as the most environmentally and heritage-friendly way of increasing London's housing supply.

3. Actively encourage and support enforcement action by London boroughs where incentives fail to bring properties back into use.

4. Promote and support the spread of ‘short life housing’ - temporary housing use of buildings awaiting re-use, refurbishment or redevelopment.

5. Press London boroughs to abolish the remaining tax breaks for owners of empty homes.

How will the candidates respond? More cogitations to follow.

Comments

[jeh]

Boris clearly knows his stuff on housing.

[jeh]

As you say Dave, Paddick's is absurdly short. It's not a manifesto, it's barely even a briefing not. But for balance I followed all three links - Paddick = 1 page. Ken = 11 pages. Boris = 38 pages. Now I don't know whether longer necessarily means better in this context, but I think it does say something about Boris having devoted quite some time (3 times as much?) to an issue that you might not expect the Tory to make a top priority.

On a personal note, my problem with housing in London is that there is no help available unless you are a teacher or on a really low income. For most Londoners (yes, most Londoners in work earn over £20k) there isn't a scheme. Boris's below market rate idea, which looks pretty hard for an average punter to understand all the detail of, does at least actually try to do something for normal people who earn a reasonable wage but can't afford London's crazy house prices.