No pure reason except for the fact that it's demonstrably true in almost every single town in the UK?

The "fucking stupid" aspects are the ones Al mentions above. You can't achieve what you're talking about by moving someone around the corner, it would be miles away. Different schools, no social mix any more, etc, etc. It would work if you were selling a property that was valuable to build something literally round the corner in the same area, but we tried that 50 years ago. Sell housing stock to build inner-city high rises. they definitely worked absolutely brilliantly and there's been no problems at all assoicated with that, wouldn't you agree?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:44, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

I know it's true, but I think it's a big load of bollocks. My current flat and my old flat have a £20,000 difference.
And they're identical and too close to even smoke a fag between the two.

My assumptions on how it would work if it was managed well would be something like this.
Sell houses on street A as they're empty in expensive streets. Do them up a little sell them for a profit
Spend that building new houses on vacant land or derelict sites B.
Now the council has a larger stock of housing but with the same overall value. Keep doing that with the assumption that selling at a profit to build more stock is the way you'll do it.
Eventually you have a large financial incentive to increase the house values of sites B, so refurbishing a school or playground in a bad area, subsidising bus routes street cleaning and policing in those areas starts making more economic sense.

But that means it'll have to be run correctly for years...
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:58, Reply)

Which we can't do. Because our political system has no incentive for longtermism.
And that still doesn't change the fact that it's retrospective - you're moving families from nice areas to shit areas with the promise that the area will get better in X years time.

moving people from a good area to a bad one will also most likely decrease the chances of stuff like the children doing well at school, thus perpetuating those family through multiple generations of poverty etc etc
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:02, Reply)

You're not moving people, you're waiting for the current occupiers to either die
or move out. And replacing them with new council tennants who are currently on a waiting list or in hostels or something.
If it was an eviction or relocation style thing I'd be dead against it.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:04, Reply)

It will turn into one, though.
Because there will be pressure for the results to be seen more quickly.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:06, Reply)

That is the thing.
Over 20 to 30 years you could change the face of the social housing in a council by proper property managment and smart manipulation of the market.
However they won't, because a council doesn't think on those timescales.
It's ridiculous as well because lets face it any councils property portfolio is probably their biggest asset if they were more flexible with it, they could make more money.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:10, Reply)