My good friend Red Baron made an aside on my post about the council Tax and I thought it worth exploring. It was this:
Leaving aside what I may feel as to the private ownership of housing in general…
Now, I know where he is going with this. The reasoning being that if the state owned property, then people (all people) would be housed according to their needs. On the face of it, this is a laudable sentiment. There would be no homeless beggars on the city streets begging for charity and sleeping in cardboard boxes in subways and under railway bridges. Who, unless completely devoid of compassion could not be moved to want to change this state of affairs?
Well, everyone having a home is the theory, at least. The practice as I have pointed out is that the socialist utopia fails to materialise. This is probably because those charged with imposing it are as corrupt as the people they replace. And, no single political philosophy holds all the cards. Also, the theory relies on us all being satisfied with whatever hand the state deigns to deal us. Being individuals rather stumps that one. 
Mrs Longrider and I live in a semidetached two-bedroom house with a medium sized garden on the outskirts of Bristol. We have vistas across common land and countryside. It is a quiet residential area and that is why we chose it. Now, if the state owned all property, I would presume that as with council housing now, people would be placed according to practicality as they come to the top of the list. A property such as ours would not go to a childless couple as it is now; it would go to a family. The state would see this as logical and reasonable; housing according to need. We would be put, no doubt, into a one-bedroom flat somewhere. Wherever that would be, I would hate it. I need my space; that’s why we have a garden, that’s why we live on the outskirts of the city. That is why, when we bought our French property, it is in a remote hamlet in the middle of the Larzac. Oh, yes, before we get into dual ownership – I’ll come back to that one in a minute.
There are other problems with not owning one’s own home that would make the situation unbearable for me. When my sister bought her first property, it was a ground floor flat. The flat came with a lease. The lease had rules. To me, the idea of someone imposing rules on how I live in my own home is an anathema. Landlords will impose rules about pet ownership, for example. This, for me would be intolerable – I guess the old Englishman’s home being his castle runs deep in my arteries. But, then, I don’t much approve of rules generally. I never was very good at being told what to do – something to do with having a strong will, I guess.
Sometimes rules may be necessary; all too often, though, people impose them to exert control. This was the case with my sister’s lease. Having said that, I don’t have a problem with those rules that are there for a positive purpose. I don’t for example, object to the principle of planning regulations – providing they are reasonable and enacted sensibly.
The problem that Red Baron alludes to is that of housing being unavailable for those in most need. Here, we agree. I always have and I always will. For that reason, I objected to the policy of selling off council houses. If council tenants want to buy property, then they should be free to do so, just as those tenants in privately owned properties can and do. However, the council property should then become vacant for another tenant; someone who cannot afford property ownership. That is the underlying principle of council housing. Loss of council housing stock led to a shortage that is still causing problems for local authorities today.
Equally, I have no objection to private landlords. They are not the evil some paint them to be. As in all walks, there will be good and bad. They provide a service. A friend owns a number of small properties and spends much of his time going from one to the other carrying out maintenance. He provides for his tenants affordable housing. I see nothing wrong with him making a modest living doing so.
When we started thinking about a place of our own some eighteen years ago, it quickly became apparent that for the cost of renting, we could afford a mortgage and have money over. This made home ownership a pragmatic choice. Also, it meant that within our price range we could make a choice about location and type of property. This is not a choice we would have if the state provided housing.
Going back to the French property. There are those who condemn second property ownership as having a foot in two communities, yet not really contributing fully to either. There is some merit in this reasoning. However, our plan is more long term. In a couple of years, I will have cleared sufficient mortgage debt to enable us to sell our UK property, clear both mortgages and move to France with no debt. The property has enough land to engage in a degree of self sufficiency as do our neighbours. Also, they operate a cooperative with regards to produce as we discovered last summer. A bowl of surplus plums from our fruit trees was rewarded with a bowl of tomatoes. Our other neighbour can supply meat and eggs. This small community of about fifty people operates a loose collective for the purposes of small agriculture – I’m sure Red Baron would approve if he saw it in action. Yet, we own the property – as do our neighbours. That way we can ensure choice; choice to live in an environment that suits us. In this case, open space and as the French like to describe it; “plenty of calms”.
“Now, I know where he is going with this.” Hahaha I thought you might! Glad to have spawned a new post though and one I too get get stuck into.
My problem with private ownership is very much one that comes from the observation of what we now have. It seems an anathema that we should have one person living in a vast house whilst others are crammed into one room. I do not feel that people having enough space for themselves is somehow not synonymous with everybody being housed. As such I do not think that 2 people living in a 2 bedroom house is particularly excessive. I currently live in a 2-3 bedroom house whilst living alone, but of course I have my kids staying with me for 2-3 weekends a month. There are always circumstances where people may need a little and that should not be impossible. 1 bedroom per person would be my ideal point as a starter, let us see what that does and then work back from there. At the moment there is far more to be gained from that and by reclaiming accommodation from people living selfishly in houses far bigger than their needs than being too dogmatic.
As for your local collective farming this seems an excellent solution, this is how it should be done where possible, local solutions for the locality the over-arching state should only be intervening to deal with the things the locality may need from outside like water, power, transport, sanitation etc.
Your community in France sounds very nice! We often share things in this neighborhood–fruits and vegetables, tools, etc.