Incentives could include financial support or tax breaks for developers to build housing that is affordable for low- and middle-income families. Proponents argue that it increases the supply of affordable housing and addresses housing shortages. Opponents argue that it interferes with the housing market and can be costly for taxpayers.
92% Yes |
8% No |
92% Yes |
8% No |
See how support for each position on “Affordable Housing” has changed over time for 35.7k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Affordable Housing” has changed over time for 35.7k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from UK users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9NSLXLC2wks2W
Yes but they should prioritise brownfield sites and ensure that existing villages and towns are not over populated: i.e. boost the criteria and requirements for ensuring roads, infrastructure, schools, doctors, dentists etc. can cope with the additional populations. Otherwise, the houses sell but everyone’s quality of life decreases.
@9PCKNFX6 days6D
It depends on what is meant by 'incentivize', and who would be incentivized. More housing is desperately needed for those at the lower end of the financial spectrum, but I don't feel that house builders/developers are interested in providing this, as there's less return
@9P6QXND1wk1W
Yes but they should provide the power to the people in order to stop it from lining the pockets of mass developers
@9P6LYBD1wk1W
No, the government should build affordable housing, and keep ownership, otherwise the "affordable" housing will skyrocket in price.
@9P4LGK81wk1W
The government should prioritise the building of social housing instead of encouraging property developers to building 'affordable' housing that locals can't afford
@9P4GG7F1wk1W
The entire housing market needs to be looked at so prices are more realistic - people who should be able to afford a home cannot due to the massive gap between wages and costs
Explore other questions that UK voters are discussing.
