Peter Saunders, in his book A Nation of Home Owners, argues that we, as human beings, have a natural disposition for 'territory and possession' that can only be fulfilled through home ownership. There's no denying that the vast majority of people in the UK aspire to home ownership but I’m not convinced this comes down to some primordial urge. To present home ownership as the ‘natural’ order of things denies the fact the new dominance of home ownership has been shaped by policy moves to extend the tenure to the majority, while at the same time pulling back on social housing provision, and deregulating the private rented sector.
The reason that most of us aspire to own a home, is not based on some natural urge, but on the fact that there isn’t much of an alternative. Home ownership is meant to be about ‘choice’ but there isn’t really much of a choice to be made when faced with rip-off landlords who charge high rates for shitty flats, and a social sector that isn’t large enough to provide homes to meet a general need.
Who really wins in the aggressive extension of home ownership to everyone? If the recent crash is anything to go by not even the banks and certainly not the public purse or low income home owners. The assumed benefits of home ownership such as personal control and autonomy as well as wealth accumulation just don’t ring true when people are faced with the social, financial and personal costs of mortgage possessions and arrears.
In my view, there is nothing inherent in the benefits and rights attached to home ownership, or any other tenure for that matter, because they are created in law and laws can be changed. I for one would happily stay in the private rented sector if I had some security of tenure, if I could ensure that a certain standard was maintained and if there were some controls over rents so I’m not priced out every year and forced to move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment