Sick Buildings: Britain's Rotten Housing

A couple years ago I was obsessed with the housing crisis. At that time it was yet to become a big issue in the trending British political debate but it was clear to me it was the oncoming election decider for a generation of neglected young voters soon to become asset purchasing adults. Given Labour have now adopted a campaign of building houses, I think now is a time to share on my platform the essay I put together on housing.

SICK BUILDINGS:

Britain’s rotten housing

A plague graced Prague with a creeping poison.

Bound to the walls of local houses was a defiling pestilence that infected the lungs of its victims. A Czech mycologist named Carl Joseph Corda first described this insidious tar as a fungus which we now know to be black mould. Stachybotrys chartarum, good luck saying that out loud.

But before Corda noted the existence of this fungus in 1837, a 17th century English physician described the effect housing could have on his health.

“As I came into Staffordshire, into my Native Air, I was usually visited with a severe Fit or two. The Air of a Town makes the Fits more severe when they happen” wrote Sir John Floyer in his 1698 essay: ‘A Treatise of the Asthma’. Floyer described how his breathing worsened in cities more than the countryside.

Specifically, Floyer noted that the damper, hotter and smaller a room was, the worse his asthma could be.

And long before Floyer wrote about the phenomena of sick buildings, in chapter 14 of Leviticus, the Bible detailed how one must handle the ‘defiling mould’:

“If the defiling mould reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mold has spread in the house, it is a persistent defiling mold; the house is unclean. It must be torn down-its stones, timbers and all the plaster-and taken out of the town to an unclean place”.

Buildings have been mouldy since man first built. But an energy crisis in the 1970s led to regulations changing, which incentivised the use of cheap construction materials. And increased the likelihood of toxic rot in the average home.

But I think there’s a bit more to the story than that. I think the sickness in our buildings is a reflection of our housing system. It’s an amorphous complicated beast.

This series of essays I have written is an attempt to understand what, how and why the British housing system is the way it is. As well as the consequences of this system. And I have analysed this system through the lens of my experience and perspective.

So please join me as we tackle this phenomena brick by brick. And maybe we can scrape away the mold, replaster over and call the priest to get their approval of a healthier housing system.

A healthy economy is when you tell a whole generation to sit tight and wait for their parents to die - @AyoCaesar

THE HOUSELESS PROBLEM

I awoke one morning and saw black mildew speckled across the ceiling and creeping down the wall. It was my birthday, I had turned 25.

I ate, I boozed, I slept. I woke up an older man, hungover. I enjoyed the comfort of that flat, but my room there was a shoebox. Single bed, barely room for a dresser, and it was small enough that you could spread your arms and touch the walls.

And because I was living in the capital of the country I paid half a grand monthly for the pleasure.

As time went on, I was getting ill more often. The coronavirus pandemic confined me to this small room and the COVID19 tests were coming up negative. I realised I was developing sick building syndrome.

A condition caused by the effects of badly designed housing that fosters poor air quality and the likelihood for black mould. As the spores of the stachybotrys chartarum spread around the room, they can cause irritation, disease and malaise.

Some days I was determined to go to war with the fungus. Armed with rubber kitchen gloves and mould remover, I’d scrub the walls and ceilings until they were free of bacteria.

Some days the battle was lost before I returned home. I’d enter my room, fall to my bed and lie there, soaking in the poisonous air with no will to combat the miasma that engulfed me.

During this time I was living in rented accommodation in the city, and I felt it was time for a cost-effective change. Eventually, I moved back home to the countryside and spent half a year living with my parents whilst trying to sustain my young adult life.

It’s difficult working from home, yelling at video games and having a girlfriend when you’re five strides away from your father’s desk.

My room back home is pretty good all things considered. It’s private and sizable enough to be used as my own personal office, bedroom and living room. But it’s exactly this dynamic which wears me down over time.

I’m not the type of person who rises at 6am, runs in the snow and swallows a heap of kale because I know the right way to do things and how to achieve inner satisfaction through strong discipline.

When I go to the gym, it is the place where I exercise. When I go to the office, it is the place where I work. When I go home, it is the place where I masticate furiously until I pass out.

In this little room I call home, if I stand too fast my head hits the slanted ceiling. I step away from my bed and I am at the office. If I turn 180 degrees away from my desk, I am in my living room.

If I need any creature comforts, I rush downstairs, and ask my Mum where my dinner is. I might then go to the lavatory to find some family member has egregiously taken the toilet for themselves right when they knew I’d need it.

I might rush to the one other toilet in the house and that’s also occupied by another churlish excuse for a family member! I wait outside one of the doors cursing every second I was born into existence with this group of selfish individuals determined to make me pee my pants.

And it’s when I’m standing there, peeing my little pants that I realise I’m still a child. This housing infantilizes me. My family does everything in their power to support me, empower me and educate me for a future of things they know more about than I do.

And this support is unrivalled and exceptional. All my successes are theirs. But if I continue to live my adult life alongside them, I’m living less like an adult and more like a son. When one’s parents pay the bills and provide the food, why consider paying bills and providing food?

And despite my two degrees, training from lofty institutions, and experience in the world of work I am having a hard time getting the average wage.

Fortunately studies suggest my degrees almost guarantee I will break that barrier and achieve a good income which I can use to save up and get some property and begin my adult life as a tax paying, landowning Briton without parental support if everything goes to plan!

Maybe in my 30s.

One of the benefits of living at home with parents who’ve seen it all, is they can share their experience of starting out as a young person who worked hard and got a house.

My Dad moved out of school digs when he was 18, he had a job lined up in London through his school. He lived in a squalid house with a shared kitchen and bathroom. He later moved in with friends into a nicer flat with an affordable rent. After a couple years of saving he bought a flat in London in his early 20s.

From there he gradually climbed the property ladder, selling his previous property and moving into a nicer one. After decades of clever manoeuvring in the market, he’s landed in a valuable property anyone would be satisfied to retire in.

I am of my father’s age when he was starting out in the property market. I have tens of thousands of pounds of debt for my student loan. I live in my overdraft because I struggled to pay bills during university. And I loan money to family and friends to help them pay their debts as they’ve helped me with mine.

And I am exceptionally privileged. That father figure I mentioned attended an expensive private school in England. You might believe this results in rampant opulence and you’re right to assume, it often does. But not for everyone.

I come from a middle class household in the countryside with parents who got a strong education in their youth. I am of a race, class and gender which is well represented in most leadership roles in business and government. I’ve lived around the nation, visited every country within the UK and benefited from privileged education.

And despite these privileges, I have taken longer to acquire a house than my father did at my age.

There are social reasons for this. My parents didn’t go to university, they didn’t get into debt at a young age. Also, I think there were more traditional guidelines in the previous generation’s era, like the good and proper thing to do is to get a house and start a family.

Nowadays, young people are encouraged to find themselves and travel or go to university. The youth of today are incentivised to live wildly with peers and if one can acquire a good education during those wilderness years, even better.

And if one has lived fully and actualised themselves, well probably best to settle down and make that potential future a reality.

I am not certain if I have lived fully and self-actualised, but I am interested in taking the next step in life to be more financially responsible and secure. And my father’s advice has been for a long time, the sooner you can get on the property ladder, the better.

In the UK, the property market appears to be increasing in value year on year. I want to take part in this market, but what will it realistically be like for me to get involved as a first time buyer?

My first time buyer mates are older than millenials and moving from renting in London to buying in the Midlands now they can work their London jobs from home. Of course this will help push prices up in the Midlands where its been relatively more affordable for the doomed millenials previously. No one is a winner. - u/puzzled_yeti

YOU ALWAYS REMEMBER YOUR FIRST

Let’s get rigorously hypothetical. You’re a UK first time buyer, on the average income looking for the average house.

So let’s consider, what can the average earner turned first time buyer expect when attempting to get an averagely priced house?

Let’s first establish:

1. Average income in the UK

2. Average house price

3. The money necessary to afford the average house

The average salary in the UK is estimated to be £24,600.

The average house price in England is approximately £300,000.

If you’re earning the average salary and want an averagely priced house and believe you’re thrifty enough to do it without a loan, then it will take you 12 years to buy a £300,000 house.

If you save 100% of your salary year on year. Personally when I see these time scales, I think sod that. Let’s get a loan.

Now it’s unlikely you’re going to be able to get a loan for a £300,000 house on the average income. It’s more likely you’d get something between £20,000 to £100,000 at best if you get a generous loan.

When I used the HM Government sponsored money helper calculator for mortgages, the most I found one could get a loan for was £100,000 based on a repayment plan of 25 years with a fixed interest rate of 3%. Resulting in £489.96 of monthly repayments.

For perspective, for £100,000 one can purchase in Brighton for example, a garage or a studio flat or retirement flat or 25% shared ownership of a two bedroom flat (as of April 2022).

The potential for affordable property increases the further north one goes, if one looks to Lancashire, with £100,000 one can afford a two bedroom flat with a private garden.

One would need an extra £200,000 if one wanted to buy a house at the average price of £300,000.

But we’re constructing a rigorous hypothetical around modern averages. We wanted to get the average house on the average income, right? How come the average salary entitles you to a property that is worth ⅓ of the average house?

This is the way of the housing market I’m afraid. Especially down south. And it's a result of house prices outpacing inflation. I’ll get to this later, for now let’s press on - let’s say you want a miraculous mortgage for a £300,000 house on your average salary.

If you want to get a mortgage to buy a house in the UK as a first time buyer, you’ll usually need to fund a deposit of at least 5% of the price of the property you want to buy.

So for a £300,000 house on £24,600 per year you’ll likely need to put down approximately £15,000 of your own money to pay the deposit on a mortgage.

To save up for this deposit payment it might be worth using the 50/30/20 rule. The rule being, one should use 50% of their income for essentials, 30% on non-essentials and 20% goes to your savings.

So if you like most Britons are paid on a monthly basis, what does this experience of saving look like?

£24,600 per annum paid on a monthly basis is £2,050 before taxes. 20% of that is £410 per month, leaving the average earner with around £1,500 after taxes. So if one is wise enough to conserve £410 per month for 37 months on this salary, home ownership is on the cards.

As long as the cost of living crisis hasn’t dogged one’s bills too much that is.

If you’re curious about the British costs of living during 2022; if the average earner is supporting a family of four, their average monthly costs (not including rent) is estimated to be £2,285. Whereas a single person supporting themselves is estimated to spend £656 (not including rent) per month. I digress.

So 37 months have passed, no financial crises have affected us (thank God), and in this hypothetical we are not supporting a family of four and we’ve saved £15,170.

But what about other costs? Well you’ll need to pay an arrangement fee for a mortgage, which is anything up to £2,000.

You’ll also need to pay a booking fee which is usually between £50-300.

Then there’s valuation fee which is somewhere between £100 and £1,000.

There’s the Clearing House Automated Payment System fee that’s normally a £50 charge.

You might also have to pay for the administration cost of your mortgage for your lender which generally costs up to £300.

The fee for mortgage brokers falls in the region of £500 but sometimes this is taken directly from the lender as commission.

You’ll also need to pay for your own survey of the property, cost could be anywhere up to £1,000.

Good news though! Since the house you’ve bought is £300,000 in this hypothetical and you’re a first time buyer, you won’t have to pay stamp duty tax. I’ve also assumed in this outline of costs you didn’t consult a solicitor and have no fees to pay in that regard.

So if we add up the additional costs (minus solicitor and stamp duty), the lowest they could potentially be is £600 and the highest the additional costs could approximately be is £5,150.

So if you’re on the statistically average salary saving 20% of your monthly income, it might be best to wait 4 years and a few months before you get that mortgage if you want to be as secure as possible when paying those additional costs.

So let’s say you’ve done it, you've been a good little saver for four years on an average salary which has offered you 2,050 per month. You’ve got over £20,000 in the bank and it’s time you got that first time buyer loan sorted.

Congratulations! You achieved a miraculous £285,000 mortgage on the average priced house of £300,000 with the average salary of £24,600 per annum. You've saved £20,000 for a 5% deposit as well as additional costs. How much are you paying back per month?

If you were fortunate enough to get a mortgage for 25 years at 3% interest for a £300,000 loan; per month you would repay approximately £1,351 for 25 years on a fixed interest rate. Totalling £405,383.

So what percentage of the average earner’s income is paid in monthly repayments on a first time buyer mortgage for the averagely priced house? Approximately 65% of monthly income leaving £699 of your monthly income for whatever costs necessary.

If you’re paying these bills during the cost of living crisis just for yourself, it’s estimated you’d spend £658 per month on monthly costs. So once those are paid as well as your monthly mortgage payment, you’ll be left with £41 to play with. Lucky you.

This repayment plan is feasible as long as the only person you’re money is supporting is yourself. And in 25 years time your investment will appreciate dramatically. Assuming the housing market continues to trend upwards, your home would potentially be worth double what you paid for it once you paid off your loan.

And so you are on the housing ladder, well done. It's only up from here…assuming the bubble doesn't burst…

Not everyone is fortunate enough to adapt to the housing market and its numerous bubbles. My parents were able to and they survived multiple financial crises without risking homelessness. Other members of my family did not.

My grandparents moved from England to Northern Ireland, bought a nice house and hoped jobs would come to pay for the move. Unfortunately the work didn’t come and the 1990s financial crisis hit. They were forced to move back to England and live with my parents.

My parents took them in and they all lived together for a time as my grandparents got back on their feet. Eventually my grandparents moved into a house nearby.

I loved visiting them as a child and I’m fortunate they were so close. It would’ve been a shame to see them less because they lived in Northern Ireland. But it is also a shame the only reason they were so close was because of a financial crisis and a housing bubble.

A housing bubble occurs when property demand outpaces supply - often at an alarming rate. And what of the 2022 UK housing market? Is our bubble about to burst?

Rhys Schofield, managing director at Belper-based Peak Mortgages and Protection said: “House prices may have edged down slightly but they're still frighteningly high. The property market is broken, kaput."

I worked out I'd never be able to afford a house with even a little garden in Bournemouth back in 2008. So I f*cked off abroad. Last year I bought a big house with a big garden, in a forest, 45 minutes drive from the second largest city, all for the price of a 1 bed flat overlooking some bins at home. - u/Iwantadc2

TOO MANY PEOPLE, NOT ENOUGH HOUSES

According to Bellway, one of the largest property developers in the UK, the state of the market is such that house price increases are outpacing inflation.

But what happens if we look back at homeowners of the last few decades? Was it always this way? What was the cost of a house for our ancestors and how much did it change over time?

In 1968, an average salaried couple after saving their money could get a loan and buy a three bedroom terraced house in Brighton that cost them £3,300.

In 1979, an average salaried couple could get a loan and buy a £13,000 two bedroom Brighton property.

In 1988, an average salaried couple could get a loan and buy a £37,500 studio flat in Brighton.

In 1997, an average salaried couple could get a loan and buy a £54,950 large two bed flat in Brighton.

In 2009, an average salaried couple could get a loan and purchase a £159,950 one bedroom flat in central Brighton.

And if you were curious, an equivalent flat in Brighton in 2019 would go for sale at £179,950.

As the Office for National Statistics succinctly put it, increasing demand and limited supply is what caused the situation we’re now in.

But we’re in a situation that voters walked into throughout the years, unaware of what the consequences would be.

The 1919 Housing Act provided subsidies for local authorities to build council houses. in the 30s, house construction peaked at 350,000 a year. WWII caused house construction to slow significantly.

Council-house building peaked under the Conservative government of the 1950s, 250,000 new local authority homes a year were in construction. Much of the expansion was because of the new towns designated by the Atlee government in the newly created green belt surrounding London.

The 1960s was the era of the tower block, where quantity superseded quality. So much so that 22-storey Ronan Point tower block in east London collapsed after a gas explosion.

In the 1970s, Britain’s house price inflated dramatically after Conservative chancellor, Tony Barber, eased credit conditions. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was suggested an idea to offer council tenants the right to buy their own homes. He rejected it but an ambitious politician named Margaret Thatcher seized the idea.

Thatcher made it the centrepiece of her political campaign and it was effective. The adoption of this policy caused house prices to inflate once again. It was known as the Lawson Boom and it caused a long and difficult bust. Interest rates were raised to 15% to control inflation.

Unemployment doubled and many weren’t paying back their mortgages. Record numbers of repossessed homes swept Britain. By the end of the 1990s the housing market began to recover.

In the 2000s, house construction slowed significantly whilst populations rose and cheap credit was available. These are the conditions necessary to cause a housing bubble. And the bubble burst yet again.

It’s all well and good blaming/thanking politicians for these ups and downs over the years but we vote for them. They go where we vote and unfortunately most voters aren’t gifted with accurate predictions of the economy for the upcoming decades.

It appears to me, that inflating house prices is something many voters benefit from and it comes at the cost of the voter who has less opportunity to invest early and often.

Since the 1970s, population rose, house construction slowed, the cost of living increased, wages inflated, and these market forces tightened the UK’s citizens' cash, but added value to their assets.

As time went on, the housing market’s rising prices were seen as a benefit to those with property assets and as their investment’s value increased, less and less consideration went to the young first time buyers who were finding it more and more difficult to become a property owner.

Building affordable housing for newcomers would inevitably drag down the value of the previous generations' high value investments into property assets.

So those voters with property can turn a better profit the more expensive the housing market is. Asking them to vote for a political party that will fund mass new-builds will bring down their assets value.

Personal finance expert Sharon Collard noted of this phenomena: “some people are doing extremely well out of housing wealth, while others just can’t get on the ladder. And that seems very unfair. There are now at least eight government housing schemes aimed predominantly at helping first-time buyers. That’s great, but it just kind of sums it all up doesn’t it?”

It seems the modern era is experiencing a surreal problem. We are going through a period of accelerating houselessness. An exciting new time where many people have places to call home, but they don’t have places that are solely their own.

How much has this situation priced out the youth of today from investing in a home?

My mom died unexpectedly. The inheritance is the only reason I was able to afford my house…Is that not a red flag for a struggling economy?

• u/RocknRollSuixide
  

YOU’RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE

From personal experience I can confirm most of my youthful peers rent with friends and are not saving for a house just yet. Others live with their families well into their 30s and the minority amongst my youthful peers invest in property.

Those young people that are investing that I personally know, aren’t doing so with their own money. Their parents who can afford to invest in their children are the ones investing in the house.

Admittedly commenting on what my experience is does not scientifically prove what the country is going through, but I can only offer my experience as a phenomenological reflection of this subject.

It’s also worth noting, a big reason as to why not many invest is that a good deal of young people aren’t set in their ways. Nor should they be.

More and more go to university or on gap years; buying property requires one to commit to a long term plan and financial structure. Commitment to a long term regime can hinder one’s ability to explore every aspect of their potential.

Regardless of my experience, if house prices continue to outpace inflation, it will get harder for young first time buyers to meet the market halfway.

And we can see younger generations are buying houses less and less.

As a result of this system, young first time buyers are significantly less empowered than their previous generation and they choose to live at home with their parents, creating a firm culture of houselessness. As of 2019, 40% of young adults are living with their parents in the UK.

And if houses aren’t built at a rate to welcome first time buyers into affordable climate friendly homes, then the houselessness problem will continue to grow.

As a result of this system, it is no surprise to me that there have been significant increases in inheritance disputes and intimate fights over assets.

The public sector and the private sector have generated wealth for older generations and protected that wealth fiercely.

Newcomers to the market are priced out and the only ones to break through are those wealthy enough often with support from the previous generations' wealth.

This system functions best for the asset-rich & cash-rich, but what of the asset-rich & cash-poor who purchased a house decades ago but their wages failed to meet the rate of inflation?

When those asset-rich & cash-poor possessors of wealth come to pass, their less-well-off offspring are more likely to have lived at home for longer creating a notion of entitlement.

And this entitlement is natural, the young are struggling to acquire assets in this system. Reliance on parents isn't a disposition, it's a survival mechanism.

When their elders unfortunately ford the river styx and leave their mortal coils, what support is left for their children who have no assets and little cash?

Well, their elders' assets seem like bountiful boons. Whether sold or held, these assets are so valuable they can be a generous endowment or a fresh start or a business opportunity for those who have little wealth or opportunity.

Given the dramatic rate that house prices increase, inheriting property is akin to being gifted a golden chest of seemingly never ending appreciating value.

One would not be wrong to fight fast and furiously against their own kin to keep hold of it if they needed the money.

This is the unfortunate emotional burden of the houselessness problem that affects family stability intimately.

Simply put, young people are relying on inheriting their parents' properties more and more. If young people had more opportunities to get their own house, they’d be less desperate to inherit family assets.

This phenomena is what I term as the ‘houselessness problem’. Young people have access to a place they can call home. If they cannot afford a rented property then they can stay with family and friends and find a home there even if they do not have their own house.

When one is houseless, there is still more potential to foster savings and get a mortgage than there is for the homeless who have no shelter they can turn to.

Houselessness is a precursor to homelessness. If one’s family or friends runs out of funds, and/or experiences tragedy, and/or suffers from a debilitating disability, then one will struggle to find shelter with family and friends.

A person in such circumstances will quickly fall from houselessness to homelessness.

Perhaps we should consider the full spectrum of the haves as well as the have-nots.

Caractacus, a barbarian chieftain who was captured and brought to Rome and later pardoned by Claudius, wandered about the city after his liberation and after beholding its splendour and magnitude he exclaimed: and can you then who have got such possessions and so many of them, still covet our poor huts?

• Cassius Dio, Roman History
  

HAVES & HAVE-NOTS

There are nearly 70 million people living in the UK as of 2022.

In the UK, 14.5 million people are in poverty, 4.3 million of those are children and 2.1 million are pensioners. 1 in 5 British people are in poverty.

If you were wondering what 'poverty' practically means, poverty is relative to the standard of living. Traditionally the term poverty is used to refer to those whose income is not suitable enough to afford material needs like food, water, energy and shelter.

Approximately half of Britons in poverty are renting accommodation and the other half own a home. And more than 274,000 people in Britain are without a home, including 126,000 children according to research from the charity Shelter.

Nearly 15 million people young and old are destitute and will struggle with home ownership. Those children through no fault of their own will face a housing market that is wholly inhospitable to their arrival.

While it’s true this is a minority of people within the UK that are destitute, their destitution isn't minor to them.

I am going to discuss the account of how a young woman fell into homelessness and how they got out of it:

Her name was Elizabeth. When she moved into her first rented flat she was running from life-endangering abuse from social services during a pandemic.

She moved in on Halloween and felt happy. Within a week, the black mould creeped in.

As a young disabled Care Leaver, Elizabeth was overwhelmed by the state of the flat. The doors didn’t close fully, the water didn’t run and the mould showed no signs of stopping. She contacted the landlord and they told her the damp came with the flat. The landlord agreed to send a contractor round.

The contractor was concerned there were structural issues with the property. The contractor left and nothing was done.

Over time Elizabeth started to experience health problems from the toxic fungus on the walls. Elizabeth experienced many problems including asthma, hair loss, insomnia, chest pain, a sore throat, wheezing, sneezing, coughing, irritated skin, memory problems and fatigue.

The rot spread and the black mould grew dark and thick. Elizabeth went to A&E in the spring for breathing issues. After several trips to A&E, Elizabeth was informed she had an allergic reaction to the black mould.

During the third lockdown in winter, Elizabeth booked an appointment with Environmental Health. When an agent came round, they listed many reasons why the flat was uninhabitable. There weren’t enough heaters or fire alarms and the water system seemed liable to flood.

The flat was deemed so uninhabitable that the council classed Elizabeth as homeless and she was moved to Emergency Temporary Accommodation. Elizabeth was put in contact with a social worker during this time.

The landlord evicted Elizabeth and she was charged in full for the rent of the flat despite the fact it was deemed unlivable. Elizabeth found herself living in emergency temporary accommodation with no money and her social worker had stopped contacting her. At this time Elizabeth began attempting to take her own life on a regular basis.

Environmental Health took the landlord at their word that the flat was repaired and moved Elizabeth back in. It became clear to Elizabeth that the mould wasn’t removed but painted over. The landlord didn’t fix the flooding water system or the faulty electrics. The front door lock stopped working and anyone could wander in, and at times some did.

The fridge/freezer was infested with maggots, resulting in Elizabeth being uncomfortable storing food in it. As a result Elizabeth ate less and less, causing her health to decline.

Elizabeth tried to find somewhere else to live but their landlord had written such terrible references that nobody would rent to Elizabeth. It was Christmas time when the landlord’s eviction notice came in.

Elizabeth reached out to local authorities and social services but received little response. Having come from an abusive background in social care, this experience felt particularly degrading for Elizabeth. She cried on Christmas day.

Fortunately Elizabeth turned to a friend that felt like family and they took her in, she stayed with them whilst looking for work. During this time Elizabeth managed to speak to a psychiatrist and together they began figuring out a way to manage Elizabeth’s health.

Unfortunately there wasn’t much work available for Elizabeth during the pandemic, and her home owning friend had recently been made unemployed. Paying the monthly mortgage repayments became more difficult for Elizabeth’s friend who was about to have his home repossessed.

Elizabeth’s friend wanted to take her to live with him and his parents, but her family had heard about Elizabeth’s mental illness and disability problems and wanted nothing to do with her. Elizabeth left her friend's house with everything she owned in her rucksack.

Elizabeth pleaded with her psychiatrist to take her in. She was admitted for six weeks at a local mental health hospital. Elizabeth got medication that helped her and eventually got a rented flat with a friend from the hospital and rebuilt her life.

Elizabeth went on to study and found part-time work in a shop. By this time it was summer and things were looking up, lockdown had come to an end and her studies were going well. One day Elizabeth arrived back at her flat to find her roommate was using again.

Her roommate was in and out of rehab, selling off more and more of their belongings to make ends meet. Elizabeth’s roommate never took anything of hers, but one day they never returned to the flat. Elizabeth’s roommate had been arrested for seven years having been found with heroin in their possession.

The bills piled up and Elizabeth had to quit her studies to take on more work. Council tax went up, energy bills went up, it seemed like every cost Elizabeth had went up. Elizabeth applied for benefits but the money got sent to the wrong account, eventually she became ill and was unable to work.

In her ill and confused state Elizabeth withdrew from the benefits system and soon she couldn’t afford rent and was forced out of her property. She stayed with a friend from work for a few nights but after overhearing her colleague argue with their flatmates, Elizabeth left in the middle of the night.

Elizabeth had left a note on the kitchen table when she left. It read “Thank you for everything, I will make it up to you someday. God bless you.”

It was autumn when Elizabeth first slept on a park bench. Elizabeth had run out of medication, she had no money and was still struggling with illness. She took to sitting on the street and asking for change.

Elizabeth would wake, go to a public toilet and use the sink to wash herself. She tried saving what money she could but it was hard to keep secure in the night while she slept. Elizabeth was sleeping less and less and found that a drink would help her sleep.

Elizabeth found it difficult to sleep in the cold and to protect her money every night, so she took to spending it on something that made her feel warm. It was winter when her body was discovered in a public restroom.

She was grey and crumpled on the floor. There was evidence of pneumonia and rib fractures. Elizabeth was found to suffer from chronic pancreatitis. The local coroner stated that Elizabeth died as a result of natural causes contributed to by injury and alcohol use.

The coroner was unsure how long she had been there before she was discovered. She was 25. At her funeral, the priest remarked that she had found a home in the kingdom of God. She was buried with the crucifix found on her person at the time of her death.

The experience of homelessness is a hard one that I find deeply troubling. But I caution you to not fret too much over Elizabeth, she was a work shy incompetent alcoholic cripple who complained too much.

I don’t actually believe that. She could be characterised by those harsh terms but I prefer kinder perspectives. I write those cruel words to echo the callous rhetoric I have heard describe the homeless person asking for a little help.

I have friends in my life who I could describe as a whiner or work shy or incompetent or alcoholic and even as crippled. But that doesn’t mean that is all they are and all they will be.

If my friends with such mean titles became homeless, I hope that they would come to me and live with me. It’s the least I can do for a friend in trouble. I hope they would do the same for me in such circumstances.

But I must admit truth be told, there is no Elizabeth. She is a fiction.

I created a fiction based off the non fictional reality that so many have experienced.

I paraphrased a group of people’s stories for brevity as to how they became homeless and attempted to represent them in one person. Inherently I am misrepresenting nuances and thus not telling their stories with 100% accuracy.

So I encourage you to read their story in detail as told by them, please do so here:

From reading the accounts these people share, I came to the conclusion that a lot of bad luck can make someone homeless. Or even one bad day or one bad week or one bad month or one bad year can do it. How many of us go without a bad period of time every so often?

When I recently moved house, during the move I dealt with the cost of living crisis and painful debt. The experience was terrifying at times as I felt I was skirting close to poverty and homelessness. I felt if I didn’t have the support network I had, my minor brush with destitution would have been a major one.

Poverty and homelessness is a major experience. Those who go through it do not forget the trauma of it quickly. And most who fall into it cannot believe it is actually happening to them.

A 2002 survey of homeless people found 48% of homeless people at that time had GCSE qualifications, 16% had A-Levels, 15% had a university degree and 13% had a professional qualification. These qualified people struggling with homelessness are often rejected from receiving help because it’s thought their qualifications are enough to rescue them from homelessness.

When one looks into the ways people end up homeless, there’s a range of issues that often conspire against the individual.

One contributing factor is the lack of a personal support network such as not having family and friends one can rely on. A tragedy that arises from this phenomena is that sometimes people choose homelessness because they do not want to disrupt their loved ones lives by asking for help.

Another factor that can increase the chances of homelessness for those in poverty, is disability or mental illness that provides difficulty when attempting to amass income. And the most significant factor poor people struggle with is the economy one contends with.

As James Baldwin remarked, “anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”

If you’re poor you pay more for public transport because you can’t afford monthly travel passes. You rely on old cars that break down and cost a lot to fix, whilst paying fuel prices that outpace your wages. You pay more for rent than your place is worth. If you’re poor, you’re more unlikely to eat healthy meals because healthy food costs too much on average for someone on minimum wage. And without spare cash, you can’t save by buying in bulk. You’re less likely to have a bank account because of soaring fees and penalties. You also pay a higher percentage of value from your income in taxes than those with expendable income do.

Poverty is death by a thousand cuts. As Baldwin wrote, “one’s feet have simply been placed on the treadmill forever.”

And how many of us can endure the never-ending sprint of poverty?

Those who fall from poverty into homelessness do so because they have few safety nets to rely on and the safety nets they can rely on are often government schemes.

Even with charitable social services and charitable schemes, over 200,000 people in the UK are homeless as I write these words. Trusting charities to solve our problems is tough because charities can only do so much and rely on donations and volunteers.

But effectively when we pay our taxes, we’re paying the state to conduct different forms of charity, like national healthcare, fixing potholes and reducing the amounts of homeless people. Can we say the government is doing everything it can to stop homelessness when over 200,000 people are without a home?

It would be wrong to assume that every working member of government just doesn't care. Yes we hear stories about expense scandals and lockdown parties but these are almost always minority cases from a few bad apples.

It is much fairer to say members of parliament believe by majority in the people and work tirelessly for the people. I do not want to encourage nihilism and cynicism towards the House of Commons. But I do want to point your scepticism at the House of Lords, British nobility and the UK’s systems of wealth & power.

Whilst 200,000 are without homes, and 4,000,000 children live in poverty, 25,000 aristocrats own half the property in England.

Less than 25,000 people command more property so that they can live opulently in marvellous manor house estates with acres of land for centuries whilst millions of people struggle to make ends meet or survive the cold.

The wealthiest 10% of the UK hold around half of all wealth in the country, primarily in the form of private pensions and property.

The richest 1% of households were those whose total wealth was more than £3.6 million.

And that 1% own half the property in England. I can't help but repeat, half of England is owned by 25,000 landowners.

30% of that 25,000 is the aristocracy and gentry. 18% is corporations, 17% is oligarchs and city bankers, and 17% is unaccounted for.

It’s estimated that the noted 17% is most likely owned by aristocrats that haven’t declared their land at the Land Registry. As their estates have never been sold on the open market, their ownership would not need to be recorded.

As of April, 2022, the population of England is 56 million. Within the country, 200,000 are homeless, 14 million British people are in poverty and 25,000 aristocrats own half the land in England. And they’ve received a great deal of financial support as a result:

“At least one in five of the UK’s top 100 single-payment recipients in 2015/16 was aristocratic.

The richest have carried off the most.

The Duke of Westminster’s Grosvenor Farms estate received £913,517, the Duke of Northumberland’s Percy Farms took £1,010,672, the Duke of Marlborough’s Blenheim Farms got £823,055 and Lord Rothschild’s Waddesdon estates received £708,919.

This is all in a single year. Multiplied across the years, the payments from the EU have benefited the British aristocracy to the tune of many millions of pounds.”

And it’s not just EU schemes that finance the gentry handsomely:

“In March 2016, when the Lords sat for 15 days, 16 earls were paid £52,650 between them in tax-free attendance allowance, plus travel costs, and 13 viscounts received £43,050. The Duke of Somerset claimed £3,600, and the Duke of Montrose was paid £2,750 plus £1,570 in travel costs: £76 for the use of his car, £258 for train tickets, £1,087 for air tickets and £149 for taxis and parking costs. The duke spoke in debate or in grand committee just twice in the whole parliamentary session, and not at all that March.”

Quite literally most of Britain is owned by the wealthiest few.

Now I should suggest that to me this nation’s system isn’t vile, there are some good bits. It isn’t all injustice, inequality and lack of freedom. But our nation’s systems are weighed heavily against those with the least in favour of those with the most.

And settling for half of the country to be owned by the 1% seems to me to be rather unequal, especially as the aristocracy are born into it just as those children in poverty are born into it.

It’s time Britain decides, is the aristocracy entitled to most of the property simply because they were born in a lineage of people who were noble to ancient Britons?

And it’s worth considering, what land do the aristocracy have that was garnered through centuries of honest business and what land was grabbed through theft and violence to justify their greed?

Further consider, how many of the modern nobility attempt to dodge their fare share of taxes to this day?

How noble can this group be if they are so determined to avoid the taxes and charge the rest of us via taxpayer subsidies as they do so?

As Nancy Mitford, the daughter of the 2nd Baron Redesdale noted: “It may well be that he who, for a thousand years, had weathered so many a storm, religious, dynastic and political, is taking cover in order to weather yet one more.”

I personally do not blame someone for wanting to protect their wealth that they or their family earned through hard graft. What I am concerned about is how only the richest can weather the toughest storms, and they are often the best protected from the storm to begin with. Despite this our British systems of government often protects and benefits the wealthiest disproportionately.

Some work has been done by the charity organisation Crisis which works to end homelessness. Crisis estimates that it would cost approximately £20bn to end homelessness in the UK and potentially return benefits worth £54bn in the long run.

But that’s a lot of money right? Can the UK government afford that?

The UK government raises around £800bn revenue each year.

During the pandemic, the government charitably gave out £129bn to people and companies to help them cope during lockdown. Unfortunately in their haste to donate, the government gave out potentially up to £20.9bn to fraudsters and has been forced to write the money off as it’s unlikely they’ll recover it.

Also during the pandemic, the government gave out £316 million funding to help those at risk of homelessness and the homeless themselves.

Admittedly it’s good that any money went to the homeless during this time. But it’s enough money to save thousands, not hundreds of thousands. If enough preparation was done, the £20bn lost to fraudsters could have potentially ended homelessness in the UK or at the least eradicated the majority of it.

So if the poor are unable to save themselves from housing poverty and if the public sector is unable to save the homeless, can the private sector help?

They’re welcome to help any time they please. There’s quite a few wealthy UK citizens who could donate towards the cause as and when it suits them or come up with profitable schemes that lessen the burden on the poor.

There are 171 billionaires presently in the UK. The richest person on the list is Sir Len Blavatnik, who made his money from energy and aluminium groups in the former soviet union. Blavatnik increased his wealth by £7.2bn during 2020 primarily because of his investment in the Warner Music record label, bringing his net worth to £23bn.

George Dibb, the head of the Institute for Public Policy Research’s Centre for Economic Justice said: “There is a massive structural flaw in the economy that whatever the economic shock the wealthier get wealthier. If we’re going to get the whole economy into recovery, and leave no one and nowhere behind, we need to change this. Societies that are so unequal are bad for everyone and policymakers need to address this dangerous gap, or risk people losing trust in our economy and democracy.”

My favourite thing about neoliberal opinion pieces like this, is that they always acknowledge there's a problem, but intentionally dance around real solutions.

• u/worldstoughestvegan

HOW TO SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS

It’s important to make sure people who currently own houses don’t see a dramatic reduction in their home’s value so caution is advised with any housing reform that is proposed. Unfortunately though, no matter what you do it’s going to upset someone.

There is no perfect way to reform a broken system.

Name me one policy a government enacted that was universally popular and accepted by 100% of the populus. Even emancipation of slaves was wildly unpopular, and it could only happen in the UK because the government bought all the slaves from the slave owners in 1833. That debt was finally paid in full by 2015 with little fanfare.

So I’ve investigated some possible solutions, but they will all likely be rather controversial:

MORE FUNDING

Want better NHS services? Pay more taxes! Want better housing opportunities? Pay more towards the cause! Want to help the poor? Ask the rich to give a little more to them!

Will any of that realistically happen without controversy? Unlikely!

People want better but don’t want to pay more to get it, and you get what you pay for. The single best way to combat homelessness is literally more funding to tackle the issue. It’s possible to supply more money to households and people dealing with homelessness and poverty.

More funding could protect domestic abuse victims, youths without housing and families struggling to pay the bills. Especially if that money comes from those with the most expendable income. Are those with expendable income likely to give up their money easily? Not really, unless some tremendous politician can convince them otherwise.

So we might have to consider other ideas.

REFORM THE GREEN BELT

The green belt is that nice bit of greenery you see surrounding a city on a map. Green belts were preserved to protect areas from urbanisation. And a significant proportion of green belts are for power stations, municipal dumps and golf courses.

One could if they so wished, incentivise house construction in these areas. But rural conservative voters hate this idea with a passion. So you would likely have more success building new towns.

NEW TOWNS

Milton Keynes, Northampton, Crawley, Peterborough, Stevenage, Basildon, Derry - all of them new towns! New towns are mass new builds which provide housing, work and necessary services.

Decades ago new towns were all the rage and offered affordable housing, and then all interest in them stopped in the 70s as Conservatism came to power. And in fairness new towns weren’t perfect.

New towns may have offered large scale housing to 2 million British people after WW2, but such builds used poor construction materials, holistic planning and often unappealing design.

Have you spoken to someone who lived in a new town like Stevenage or Peterborough? I’ve spoken to a handful and worked in Stevenage myself, the infrastructure is amazing. The sight leaves something to be desired.

Gordon Brown wanted to modernise the new town idea and construct eco-towns.

The goal being to build new towns that are well planned, built with climate friendly construction and mindful of the natural environment.

But if you want to build whole towns, that’s going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, right? The government already has a lacklustre approach to council owned housing. What could be done to achieve such radical suggestions?

Well, were you aware that Her Majesty’s Government has a department with experienced ministers focused on housing?

DEPARTMENT FOR HOUSING

The actual name of the branch of government focused on this phenomena is:

Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. Or DFLUHAC.

Personally, I'm still not sure about this level up moniker but I believe in the principles of government. Their efforts could go well if significant changes occur unfortunately the Conservative party haven’t given me much confidence on tackling the housing issue.

DFLUHAC’s current press releases suggest they want to build 1,200 affordable houses. That isn’t enough for me to feel confident housing will become significantly more affordable. And recently the Conservative government seems lacking in creativity and without vision.

I’m sorry to get blatantly political but as Orwell noted: “in our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues.”

If you want a generalised view of the political landscape and how it pertains to housing, this is my subjective opinionated assessment:

If you want to make your property increase in price, vote Conservative.

If you want more affordable houses, vote Labour.

If you want your house to have a lush layer of grass on the roof, vote Green.

And if you want to grow grass on the roof and then smoke it, vote Lib Dem.

I jest but in my opinion, the Green party have the most ideas I personally agree with in regards to housing. They also have an extremely comprehensively detailed description of what they’d do if in power about housing. Other parties have more general and vague assertions on their party resources.

If we go the bipartisan tactical voting route, then Labour outperform Conservatives consistently when it comes to affordable housing. Conservative governments are more concerned with adding value, not bringing the price down. On average Labour governments tend to build more houses and adjust tax schemes to make housing more affordable than the Conservative governments do.

Now normally when I mention tax schemes, people doze off. Less so than those who have seen me do stand up. Unfortunately as dull as taxes can be, they’re incredibly important to operating an effective country.

PLANNING UPLIFT TAX

Planning uplift tax is a tax on planning permission effectively. Some argue we should replace stamp duty tax with planning uplift tax.

In 2015, the average hectare of agri-land went from £21,000 in value to £1.95m as soon as it got planning permission. Currently the state doesn’t get a penny of this value, instead the government favours stamp duty tax which charges the purchaser of land.

What planning uplift tax does is reduce the speculative pressure on land value.

Property owners buy up land in the hope it might get planning permission, if we halve their profits by taxing them 50% of the land’s value when planning permission is achieved, then this should slow the rate of property price increases. The state and their seller split the profit from the land 50/50.

So if you got planning permission on your land that increased its value to £2 million, when you sell the land for £2m, the state gets £1m, and you the seller get £1m.

Wait a minute, didn’t the UK try this and it failed?

Yes, Harold Wilson introduced a 40% planning up lift tax in 1967 known as the betterment levy. Unfortunately developers stopped applying for planning permission and waited for a more developer-friendly Conservative government to scrap the tax.

Which is exactly what Edward Heath did in 1970 and favoured a low-rate capital gains tax instead of the betterment levy. Similarly in 1976, James Callaghan introduced an 80% development land tax, but in 1979 Thatcher scrapped it.

When you have this retaliation from both sides of the political spectrum strong-armed by housing developers' refusal to cooperate, it turns housing into a political war that dramatically increases house prices over time.

Although the Conservatives have a history of cutting uplift planning tax, former housing ministers Nick Boles and Sajid Javid have come out in favour of an uplift tax. Which means there could be cross-party support in the future for such a scheme.

But if this debate on the right way to tax property comes from the value of planning permission, perhaps we should consider, can planning permission as a system be improved?

STREET VOTES AND ZONING

There’s a Conservative think tank called Policy Exchange and they’ve suggested something called Street Votes Proposal. Essentially the street votes proposal argues the biggest contributor to the housing shortage is the arduous planning permission system the UK has.

People aren’t keen on new builds in their local area. A street votes system gives the residents on every street the power to vote on how their street is developed. Essentially this turns every street into its own planning permission authority led by democratic committee.

This proposal attempts to be mindful of how locals know their area better than anyone, and if a street has the power to vote on their own street, they have the opportunity to increase their property value as they vote on what construction is allowed in the area.

Policy Exchange believes just introducing this scheme could increase house construction by 111,000 homes annually. More houses means cheaper houses.

However it’s very possible that many when voting will elect for no changes and favour keeping the street the way its always been. And even with no changes to the street the property’s value will increase annually even when nothing is done to it or the area.

Plus, some argue that the UK’s housing backlog is so mighty, gradual policy like this would be ineffective and more radical policy is required.

Quick aside on the word radical. Its etymological origin means ‘to get to the root of’. When you are having radical surgery, that doesn’t mean GET TO THE OPERATING THEATRE NOW. It means they will get to the root of your tumour through surgery in a week or so.

I like to clarify this because so many panic at words these days and warp their meaning over time. Radical means get to the root of, not immediate urgent action.

Another alternative to our planning permission system is to introduce a flexible zoning authority. Japan has a flexible national zoning scheme and as a result it’s significantly cheaper to buy a house there than it is in the UK. The vacancy rate in Tokyo is higher than the vacancy rate in Burnley.

But it is vital that zoning is taken seriously by experts with experience in urban planning. When zoning is politicised and used as a tool for power, one can end up with a situation like Ireland’s. Where zoning is inflexible, still reliant on traditional planning permission schemes and as a result housing opportunities are few and far between for the republicans of Ireland.

TAXES, TAXES, TAXES

I wasn’t done on the tax front, I think we need to discuss taxes just a bit more. I know, very sexy isn’t it? I’m a lot of fun at parties.

Simple suggestion I’d make for taxes is to remove VAT (value added tax) on extensions. If you’re adding value to your property, the state can gain more from you when you sell the property than on these kinds of transactions. Plus, if we remove VAT on extensions then we incentivise people adding value to their property.

But the tax I most want to talk to you about is not VAT, it’s LVT.

LAND VALUE TAX

Land value tax is an economic idea that suggests one should be taxed proportionally for the amount of land one owns. Kind of like charging people for restricting their land from others.

Some see it as a hippie concept where we all are children of the earth maaaan. Who decides what the borders are maaaan?

And sometimes the hippie makes a compelling case. Who decided the borders thousands of years ago?

Why must I respect the Earl of Gloucester for being the descendant of the guy who came to England on a boat, slayed the Anglo-Saxons and Danes then decided the emerald isles were his?

I respect a good sword swing as much as the next man, but I’m not sure Robert of Caen’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson deserves tax leniency and my respect because he happened to be the descendant of a guy who swung a sword bloody well.

The idea is you make people pay a percentage of the value of their land each year. Most people suggest a land value tax between 1-4%. So if you owned £1m of land, you’d pay somewhere between £10K-40K per year.

It’s thought this tax could replace council tax. This tax should encourage people not to hold on to land and to construct property on it faster. It should also bring down the overall price of land making it easier for people to buy property.

The good thing about land value tax is it’s efficient and fair. Imagine the first person in the United Kingdom’s history to claim the land that you now live on.

How can they justify that claim? The land belongs to the earth, humans settled on it, claiming ownership seems juvenile in such circumstances when one can shove the first to claim the land off the property and claim the area for themselves just as the first settler did.

I would like to note, I don’t blame anyone for settling on land, constructing borders and claiming ownership. That’s necessary for security and stability. But we need to evaluate our perceptions of Britain when we construct tax schemes for Britons.

Additionally, the supply of land is fixed, you can’t encourage or discourage the creation of land.

Compare this with a pedestrian tax like income tax. With income tax, income is not fixed, income tax inherently discourages income growth as when one earns higher rates of income, the state takes greater portions of that revenue.

It’s this system that has incentivised many to pursue tax avoidance so they can preserve their wealth and avoid state taxation.

With land value tax, you can discourage the hoarding of land for a few powerful people, and encourage housing construction for the many people who want property. Meaning those land hoarders, stand to turn a mighty profit if they build on the land well or sell the land well.

Even tax bashing economist Milton Friedman remarked that land value tax is the least bad of all the taxes.

Now there is a potential problem here for asset rich & cash poor folk, they might have a neat plot of land worth a couple million but the land owner might not have the money to pay annual land value tax.

In Denmark where they use land value tax, one can defer their land value tax annual payments to when they sell the property. So if you can’t pay the bill, you can pay it when you sell the land.

The biggest obstacle to land value tax is in effect one is proposing to all the people who’ve voted for decades in such a way as to add huge value to their property that what they should do next is vote in such a way that they lose lots of value on their land.

Yes, land value tax is better in my opinion than what we do now, but I’m a young person who struggles to own land. I’m going to have a vastly different opinion than the older person who’s land earns more than they do in a year.

If land value tax came into effect, most of the UK’s current land would drop in price. Yes this would incentivise a stabler housing market especially for first time buyers. But there are people who’ve scrimped and saved for years and tomorrow they’re getting the keys to their brand new house and with it an exciting future. Land value tax will hurt these people the most.

Yes it’s intrinsically unfair but so is the current system. Any housing reform that occurs will cause political unrest. And choosing to do nothing will also cause political unrest.

The UK is about to witness the biggest rise in homelessness since the Industrial Revolution. We haven’t seen so many homeless people at the same time in centuries. - Lord Bird, Founder of Big Issue

CONCLUSION

Sick building syndrome is a common condition. The symptoms include headaches, sore throat, wheezing, rashes and difficulty concentrating. And the symptoms worsen the longer you’re in a particular building and get better after you leave.

When I left my university accommodation and moved back home, I was better for it. I no longer battled black mould on a regular basis. Instead I battled my inner child. Eventually I conquered the sickly building and the petulant child who peed their pants, and established myself as an adult in their own flat. Saving one day for a property to purchase and call home.

The flat I’ve settled on is near my parents home. I’m going to pay approximately 50% of my monthly income on the rent. I aim to spend 30% of my income on bills and 20% on whatever I like but preferably saving. But we’ve just come out of a pandemic, there’s a war on and a cost of living crisis.

I am still in debt and when I arranged bills for my home, I was informed no one could offer me a fixed rate for energy bills due to the energy crisis. If energy bills continue to rise, I will significantly cut my expenses on food or be evicted from the flat. If bills keep rising even when I’m eating less and less, then I will be unable to pay rent.

If I am able to lean on family and friends, I will have a place to sleep and I should be able to keep my job.

If something terrible befalls them or I suffer some horrendous mental illness or disability, I may lose my job and security to lean on loved ones for support.

I imagine in such circumstances I’d become homeless.

There’s a nice spot in town I’d stay at if I was homeless. I’d sleep under a little bridge by a river, maybe on some cardboard.

If the spot wasn’t occupied and as long as no other homeless person fought me away from my resting place and no floods came via the river; I might beg and save up money for a tent.

Then under that bridge on my cardboard in my tent, I’d have a home.

As I clad myself in a sleeping bag, looking up at the light polluted sky, what would I think about in such circumstances?

I imagine I’d be thankful to be alive but I’d probably be occupied by my desperate hunger and the shivering cold. If I glanced around at the world from under the bridge, I’d see corporate chains and distant houses.

Some houses would be modest and small with dim lights and intimate geniality. Some houses would be big with glass walls and marble counters. The lights in such a house would be on for most of the home and the occupants would roam the manor with indirect boredom.

Were I under that bridge with others huddled on top of some cardboard looking up at such opulent houses, we might talk about the houses we lived in. The bills we couldn’t pay, the loved ones we didn’t want to disrupt and the disabilities that led us down the river.

Were I under that bridge with good people who tried their best and it wasn’t good enough, I might feel heavier. And I might pick up something heavy as a result.

I might look up at the house with many lights on.

And I might calculate how I can transfer the heaviness I feel onto the occupants of that marble house.

If all I’ve known is that when good people try their best and it isn’t good enough and they’re sent under the bridge to sleep on cardboard - how much will I value being ‘good’?

I’m not one for violence, never have been. But there’s a rot that can only occur in a society which thrives on the haves and have-nots. And that rot can cause violent outcomes.

This rot is the thing that corrupts the soul into valuing money and abundance as the sole achievement an individual can aspire to. And that rot works directly and indirectly. Sort of like a plague of black mould.

When the toxicity spreads it can make smart people insane. When the mould roots itself in the system, it will creep into those that depend on the system. Those who depend on the rotted system will only know rot, and they will not consider what it could be like to be unrotten.

It’s the rot that buys the seventh house with the sixth pool and the fifth convertible. And it’s the rot that hurls a brick through the window, shits in the pool and sets the convertible on fire.

I don’t want to live in a rotten country. I don’t think many do. But the housing crisis has been caused by a rotting system.

Houselessness is the creeping black mould you see when the damp breaks through, and homelessness is what happens when the toxic air clogs the throat and the rot is so pervasive that the roof has caved in.

I think it’s time we as a nation decide, are we satisfied with this system? I alone cannot decide for us. I entrust my polemics to you, the reader. You could rightly accuse me of painting with too broad a brush or missing some nuance. By all means, please write to me and inform me of my ignorance.

I hope this Treatise will excite those who are at the mercy of British housing to observe and describe its sensible and insensible phenomena. Thank you for your time and I hope you have a cosy evening wherever you are.

Paid £1.60 per litre for diesel to drive to work and back, while there I got a message from my energy provider about my bill going from £200 a month to nearly £300.

Got home to my council tax bill, and a letter about my water prices going up.

Tomorrow after work I'll do the weekly food shop, knowing it'll be ~£120 despite being £80 this time last year.

While enjoying a pay rise this year of 0%.

Something's got to break, and I can't f*cking wait for it to do so. This broken bullsh*t system needs to hurry the f*ck up and collapse. - u/TheDevils10thMan