Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tired of Waiting

Members
  • Posts

    12,917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tired of Waiting

  1. Call me cynic but I have been suspecting that the VI's lobbyists could have inserted some loopholes in these new rules. I may have just found one: "Internet sales" are exempt??
  2. The Times: "Mortgage Market Review (MMR) takes effect in April 2014" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/mortgages/article3858393.ece Only 6 months to go now. The question is by how much the new rules will affect lending? Like, what share of mortgage applicants will be blocked by these rules, or by how much their "budget" ( = maximum they can get) will be reduced. But per usual I can't find these types of analyses in our media.
  3. Sure, I have nothing against people moving when they want to, or based on normal, sensible "pros -and-cons" choices, but housing costs for the working young in the South went up well beyond and sensible level. And these are the most productive people. It's irrational to keep prices this high, via too much credit + strangled supply.
  4. I agree with all that, in general, but in these past 10 years housing costs - for the working young - went up at a much higher rate than earnings. We had a similar chat some time ago: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=191387view=findpostp=909346766 .
  5. I was replying to your point re. houses not being fully occupied, and now you reverted to population reduction, which is unrealistic. But I do agree with your new point, re HB claimants, I think they shouldn't have the automatic right to live in a given (expensive) London borough if they can't afford it, but then the political problems with it are huge.
  6. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=193043&view=findpost&p=909387304
  7. There are other options. There are "Fly-in, Aviation and Airpark Communities" also. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=community+taxi+aviation&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=JbkpUrT7DcTE7AbRp4GYAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=675#q=community+aviation+airpark+fly-in+&tbm=isch&imgdii=_ http://www.floridaairporthomes.com/communities.php
  8. Most of your scenarios imply a reduction of population in the South, which is not realistic. Regarding BTLs, there are people living in them too. But you do have a good valid point: many of these BTLs will be sold to owners occupying, eliminating the current insecurity from AST. But the cramped and crowded aspects will remain. .
  9. People have not only jobs, but much more importantly family and friends in the area they grew up in. Forcing them to move far away is a cruel solution. A much wiser solution would be to allow more homes to be built in the South.
  10. I agree that prices will fall when IRs go back up. And that we'll pick some nice bargains, including many repossessions. But then the previous owners will be homeless, or, more realistically, forced to live in these crowded, cramped and insecure accommodation we now live in. The shortage will remain. The only solution is to allow more homes to be built in the South. Re banks, since the "crunch" most have been requiring at least 25% deposit. The banks have a good buffer there. Besides, fvck them. Some bailout or bail-in is better than to keep prices this stupidly high.
  11. Final result: ________________________________________________ Should green belt land be used for housing? 50% Yes 50% No This poll is now closed
  12. + 1 Also professionals sharing for more years, and with higher salaries than before. Another one: In London many 1-bed flats have been converted into "2-bed" by moving the kitchen to living room. Bottom line is, we have too little housing space. See below. Not to mention serious regional and generational inequalities.
  13. You are right, this "1 million" myth has been constantly peddled by anti-building VIs for many years. The main two tricks these VI use is to include all the short term vacancies (less than 6 months) in the total number, and then avoiding a regional focus. And you are right again regarding accurate stats by local government. In the quote below "DCLG" stands for "Department for Communities and Local Government". ----------------------------------- "According to DCLG there were 737,491 vacant properties in Oct 2010. But many of these are not long term vacant. In fact, only 300,526 of these properties had been vacant for more than 6 months." And how many in the SE: "34,422 in London, 34,279 in the South East (25, 597 in the East of England)."
  14. The Guardian poll was going ok, with 52/48 in favour of building. But suddenly it changed back to 50/50. I had been suspicious about CPRE's silence the whole day, and have been wondering if they were thinking about doing the equivalent of an ebay last minute bid / campaigning. So, when I saw the poll change I checked to see if the CPRE was campaigning again on Twitter, and ... see below. The devious [email protected] _________________________________________________ CPRE ‏@CPRE 3h 6hrs left to vote in poll on whether to build homes on our Green Belts or use the 1.5m available brownfield sites http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/poll/2013/aug/30/green-belt-land-housing-poll?CMP=twt_gu _________________________________________________ As if we had 1.5m available brownfield sites available in the South, and as if they are not expensive to clean, prepare, etc. I wonder if the CPRE members would agree to foot the bill to clean these sites, or if the young home buyers will have to pay for that too. .
  15. That's it. About my "few years" for a million homes, I was thinking about London/SE/E.
  16. That is a myth. "According to DCLG there were 737,491 vacant properties in Oct 2010. But many of these are not long term vacant. In fact, only 300,526 of these properties had been vacant for more than 6 months." And how many in the SE: "34,422 in London, 34,279 in the South East (25, 597 in the East of England)." http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/empty-homes-and-housing-crisis.html So, less than 100k in the London/SE/E. Out of how many? 4 or 5 million? Say around 2% of all properties? Many of these properties will be for sale, or being refurbished, owner died, etc.
  17. Well the gov's debt is some 300bn higher now, than a couple of years ago. I think it's around £1.4tr now, so each 1% extra increases the annual interest bill by some £14bn. Though around 30% of it goes to the BoE... .
  18. Because we have so little infrastructure, like motorways, roads, trains, houses, etc., we feel "crowded", but if you have ever flown out of Heathrow or Gatwick, it is amazing how little populated even the south is. "Gone to Ireland" had many good posts about that, including with Google images and the like. Another poster (sorry, I forgot who), wrote that we could easily allow 4 new houses/year on a village of 100 houses, and so forth, proportionally, 4%/year. In just a few years we would have a million extra homes. .
  19. I agree. I would much prefer smaller developments and self builds, spread around existing villages, towns and cities all over the country, like I said many times before. But considering how serious our housing shortage is, specially in the South, then even new council and Barratts estates are better than nothing.
  20. Agree, though there is a 4th way: lower housing costs would help a lot too, in many ways.
  21. When we look at regional prices charts, it does look like in many regions (Midlands, North, NI, etc.) prices may be back near to their historical averages. It's London and the SE that are still near peak level. Though they should all fall when interest rates go back up to normal rates. As you say, prices will probably go below historical averages then.
  22. Yes, true, but our over-restrictive planning system is a consequence of this general anti-building culture in the country. BTW, nowadays I think the word NIMBY, regarding someone concerned only with their immediate surroundings, is too restrictive. We have a much more general anti-building culture in the country. And it supports the current planning system. Back to your original point, I think you may be right. Actual local NIMBYs would be less resistant to a few good quality houses than to a massive housing estate, either by councils or Barratts. Though the problem then comes back to this general anti-building culture. And "high-density" requirements, supposedly for "sustainability" reasons, but actually because councils want private developers to build the infrastructure, saving councils' money for their own salaries and pensions. It's all a horrible tangle of incompetence, short-sight and selfishness.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.