Homelessness is so much more than just a housing supply problem.
It’s a health access problem, it’s a social problem, it’s an education access problem, to name a few.
This statistic comes up all the time and it’s deliberately misleading.
No, we do not have enough useable empty homes just sitting there empty for no reason that could actually solve homelessness. The vast majority of those “empty homes” fit into two specific criteria: either between occupants (i.e. where the previous tenants have moved out last week and the new tenants move in in three week’s time, or owners have already moved out/emigrated/died and the house is going through the legal hoops for sale) or is condemned and awaiting either a complete gutting or demolition to build new accommodation. Neither of these are going to have anything to do with solving any homelessness issues.
These claims are constantly thrown out to generate clicks but don’t do anything productive.
Ive worked as a support worker for 10 years. Just giving a homeless person a home wont work. Its only half the solution and such a misleading little soundbyte.
Giving them a home and continuing support as in the Housing First model can be more successful. Can be very successful, but obv has a cost and councils arent interested in funding homelessness.
Ive been out on council led rough sleeper counts and they are a joke. They need to see the person asleep or they wont count them, and they didnt want to go to half the places i knew people slept. They need the number low so that the funding demand is low.
Any council made rough sleeper stat you see, triple it and youll be closer to real life.
Think of it like giving someone without a driving license a car. Without the skills and teaching to use it it wont be a helpful thing to do.
Ive supported people into housing who didnt get support and the next month when the bills came in they literally just left. And thats such a common story from anyone whos worked in homelessness. That and finding entrenched rough sleepers who do not want a home.
Moving the homeless hundreds of miles away from their support networks into homes not fit for human habitation – as a lot of these long-term unoccupancies are – isn’t a pro-homeless policy!
My house sat empty for 6 months because the owner died and his kids needed courts to sign off on inheritance before they could sell. We’d already agreed prices and terms of sale (originally they were selling it to cover his nursing home). If I live in it for 40 years and never live anywhere else, it will have spent 1.25% of it’s time empty. So at any given time, resumably 1.25% of houses are empty for exactly that reason. That’s without considering major building work or people having to go away for work or 101 other entirely reasonable, unavoidable reasons a house can stand empty.
So a 2% vacancy rate actually seems very low to me.
Plus, curing homelessness isn’t as simple as sticking every homeless person in a house and job done. A lot of homeless people have very profound needs.
I think this is disgusting to bring this up. Landlords rights for gross profit needs to be protected.
If I was an opposition leader I would have a fucking field day with this. Get Boris to explain why he allows foreign investors to leave properties empty while war veterans sleep homeless on the street.
> Just giving a homeless person a home wont work.
I think it depends on the sort of homeless person one is.
Rough sleepers are likely to have more complex needs than just a house. The very act of sleeping rough causes a lot of complex problems itself. And for those people, simply being given a house will not work.
But for those in tenporary accomodation or who are “hidden”, it may well.
The problem is that up until the 70s a house was just that – a house.
After that it became a financial asset that could traded just like market stocks and people who could afford it started using them as a way of generating income.
This turned the industry upside down.
According to one American finance vlog I saw, during the late 60s/early 70s an average salary in US was 8k and a house – 15k. A house price was equal to two yearly salaries.
Nowadays it’s more like 12 years worth of pretax salary
I am sofa surfing, technically homeless, have learning difficulties, so I’m in council band A – the priority band. I’ve been bidding for over a year and nothing.
I got in touch with my MP as I am desperate. The council told them to tell me “it takes ages, sorry”.
Some people have been on this band for 10 years. But a friend who was on the same band and same circumstances as me? Two weeks to get a flat.
10 comments
Homelessness is so much more than just a housing supply problem.
It’s a health access problem, it’s a social problem, it’s an education access problem, to name a few.
This statistic comes up all the time and it’s deliberately misleading.
No, we do not have enough useable empty homes just sitting there empty for no reason that could actually solve homelessness. The vast majority of those “empty homes” fit into two specific criteria: either between occupants (i.e. where the previous tenants have moved out last week and the new tenants move in in three week’s time, or owners have already moved out/emigrated/died and the house is going through the legal hoops for sale) or is condemned and awaiting either a complete gutting or demolition to build new accommodation. Neither of these are going to have anything to do with solving any homelessness issues.
These claims are constantly thrown out to generate clicks but don’t do anything productive.
Ive worked as a support worker for 10 years. Just giving a homeless person a home wont work. Its only half the solution and such a misleading little soundbyte.
Giving them a home and continuing support as in the Housing First model can be more successful. Can be very successful, but obv has a cost and councils arent interested in funding homelessness.
Ive been out on council led rough sleeper counts and they are a joke. They need to see the person asleep or they wont count them, and they didnt want to go to half the places i knew people slept. They need the number low so that the funding demand is low.
Any council made rough sleeper stat you see, triple it and youll be closer to real life.
Think of it like giving someone without a driving license a car. Without the skills and teaching to use it it wont be a helpful thing to do.
Ive supported people into housing who didnt get support and the next month when the bills came in they literally just left. And thats such a common story from anyone whos worked in homelessness. That and finding entrenched rough sleepers who do not want a home.
Moving the homeless hundreds of miles away from their support networks into homes not fit for human habitation – as a lot of these long-term unoccupancies are – isn’t a pro-homeless policy!
My house sat empty for 6 months because the owner died and his kids needed courts to sign off on inheritance before they could sell. We’d already agreed prices and terms of sale (originally they were selling it to cover his nursing home). If I live in it for 40 years and never live anywhere else, it will have spent 1.25% of it’s time empty. So at any given time, resumably 1.25% of houses are empty for exactly that reason. That’s without considering major building work or people having to go away for work or 101 other entirely reasonable, unavoidable reasons a house can stand empty.
So a 2% vacancy rate actually seems very low to me.
Plus, curing homelessness isn’t as simple as sticking every homeless person in a house and job done. A lot of homeless people have very profound needs.
I think this is disgusting to bring this up. Landlords rights for gross profit needs to be protected.
If I was an opposition leader I would have a fucking field day with this. Get Boris to explain why he allows foreign investors to leave properties empty while war veterans sleep homeless on the street.
> Just giving a homeless person a home wont work.
I think it depends on the sort of homeless person one is.
You already know this, but just in case someone else doesn’t, there are different [types of homelessness ](https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/homelessness-knowledge-hub/types-of-homelessness/).
Rough sleepers are likely to have more complex needs than just a house. The very act of sleeping rough causes a lot of complex problems itself. And for those people, simply being given a house will not work.
But for those in tenporary accomodation or who are “hidden”, it may well.
The problem is that up until the 70s a house was just that – a house.
After that it became a financial asset that could traded just like market stocks and people who could afford it started using them as a way of generating income.
This turned the industry upside down.
According to one American finance vlog I saw, during the late 60s/early 70s an average salary in US was 8k and a house – 15k. A house price was equal to two yearly salaries.
Nowadays it’s more like 12 years worth of pretax salary
I am sofa surfing, technically homeless, have learning difficulties, so I’m in council band A – the priority band. I’ve been bidding for over a year and nothing.
I got in touch with my MP as I am desperate. The council told them to tell me “it takes ages, sorry”.
Some people have been on this band for 10 years. But a friend who was on the same band and same circumstances as me? Two weeks to get a flat.
The whole system needs to be changed.