Forum Topic

Why Council Tax is Low in Hammersmith and Fulham

Once again our borough features in Private Eye this time over housing policy.  There were 1204 families and individuals living in temporary accommodation that the borough was responsible for last September.Between 2006 and 2011 the Council sold 104 council houses. Since 2011 184 have been sold raising a total of £70 million. The amount spent by LBHF between April 2010 and September 2013 on delivering social housing for rent according to an FoI request – nil.

Karen Taylor ● 4635d15 Comments

The 184 properties sold seem to have raised an average of £384,000. Does it not make sense for the Council to dispose of housing stock whilst prices are so high. I know then some of the homeless will have to be housed out of the borough but the opportunity cost of hanging onto this housing is really high.

Ellen Kearney ● 4634d

That's not correct because you still need to house people and it is far more expensive to put them in temporary accommodation with private landlords than in properties you own yourself.

Karen Taylor ● 4624d

Selling "surplus" council houses is part of this Administration's policy to reduce the number of council house tenants. The council hopes to compel people on the housing list to move out of London (where the jobs are!), to places which are really far away, e.g. to Swansea! Hammersmith Council offered to pay Swansea Council to take them away (see "Moves out of London on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDJPnzhWOys). The "bedroom tax" and the recent contract with Stanhope plc (see my thread "Hammersmith Council to bulldoze council estates" January 8th) are other parts of the same extreme right-wing agenda to make the lives of all those dependent on the Council for housing more and more fragile.Karen Taylor is right to draw attention to another strand of this coercive policy.

Una Hodgkins ● 4622d

All Councils, of whatever political persuasion, are selling off housing stock at the moment due to high prices including Labour controlled Hounslow and Ealing. The gentrification of the South Acton Estate seems to have been passed over yet I can't see any difference between what is happening there and what is occurring in similar estates in LBHF.

Paul Corcoran ● 4621d

We observe the sale of council housing, but is it really in the long-term interests of London to push the poor out? Surely social cohesion depends on rich and poor sharing responsibility for our city by living together, some in larger and some in smaller homes. At least they KNOW each other. If you separate the rich in isolated enclaves they become frightened. Yes, the rich become frightened! And then they behave appallingly badly towards those that they fear. This is happening now.Councils of all political persuasions should resist the temptation to sell many council houses. After all we still really need them....

Una Hodgkins ● 4621d

I don't disagree with any of your points but there are other pressures at work on local authorities that they need to consider. Rising house prices means that the opportunity cost of subsidised housing increases. Councils have to weigh the benefits of raising money through assets sales against the social costs. As most Councils, of whatever hue, are selling stock, they clearly feel that this is a better way to allocate limited resources.

Paul Corcoran ● 4617d

The social housing budget can never be made to balance by sales of housing stock, except temporarily. By making these sales councils of all are actually abdicating their responsibility for providing social housing.The middle class are under pressure and don't want council tax to increase, even just enough to keep pace with inflation. The poor are the ones bearing the consequences of this decision.

Una Hodgkins ● 4617d

Here is another reason according to the Standard today.'Hammersmith & Fulham’s income from fines has rocketed from just £6 million five years ago to an eye-watering £17.8 million.'The legality of these charges look set to be challenged.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-councils-shamed-in-parliament-for-illegal-parking-fine-revenues-9189211.html

Ellen Kearney ● 4588d

At least levying fines on motorist yields some benefits like reducing the amount of traffic on the road - selling Council housing stock does not.Both serve to allow LBHF to reduce the headline rate of Council Tax by stealth taxes and 'selling the family silver'.

Karen Taylor ● 4581d

Check out the following:http://www.thecowanreport.com/2014/03/budget-report-hammersmith-and-fulham.html

Karen Taylor ● 4575d

There is an interesting item in the ChiswickW4 newsletter this week showing what councils spend on the arts and culture.What is clear is that the low tax councils spend very little on this - nothing at all in the case of Wandsworth and Westminster.http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&spage=common/hounscoun338.htm

Paul Corcoran ● 4556d

It is easy to cut taxes if you provide services on the basis that you will only spend money if you get taken to court if you don't. Anything that is not protected by a statutory obligation to provide like libraries, theatres and some social services will be in danger.

Karen Taylor ● 4546d

LBHF is quite well served for the arts - Hammersmith has a large theatre and Shepherd's Bush has a very good quality smaller one. Acton has no theatre at all and Ealing has a volunteer run one which gets relatively little public funding.  Why should the Council fund more provision if existing provision paid for by other sources is already pretty good?

Andy Jones ● 4534d

Because there is a multiplier effect to arts and culture spending. For every pound spent far more comes back from people going out in the area or visiting and a greater sense of community cohesion as a result.

Karen Taylor ● 4532d

Is there actually any evidence for this? I can see how funding arts in major tourist centres might be economically positive overall but at the borough level it looks like subsidy for the middle class.

Ellen Kearney ● 4528d