Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Tim Miller

I Say Build 4m Quality New Houses To Keep Prices Low

Recommended Posts

Brown only came up with one good idea, that was to build circa 2 million new houses. What we need is even more houses, of good quality, of a good size, built on sizable plots and enough in the South East. The government should compulsory purchase brown field sites and farmland including green belt land and just pay the farmer 10,000 an acre. They get 3 x the present worth, we get 1/8 acre for 1k. The new builds should be property the MP's would be happy for their kids to live in, so that knocks out 70% of the @rap being shoved up now. Rooms to be a minimum size with bedrooms big enough to actually get a bed in there. Or we buy a plot for 1k and get our own builder to build or self build.

To my mind it is folly that we squeeze in as may properties into as little space as possible. One house is knocked down to shoehorn in flats or a few semi's, it's crazy, it's just not providing us with a quality of life. We have so much land that we could use to improve our lives. You do not need to get in a helicopter to see how much land we have, look at a google map of the UK. I was so peed off slaving away paying a big debt and for what, I moved away, I emigrated.

Of all the things a government could do, surly this is what we want, surly this is very achievable and would make the most difference to our lives and our kids lives. I made a comment on another post, I said that my parents and a mates parents both bought land and built detached houses on the land. Both were FTB's one must be 'worth' 750k even now. What FTB could do that now?

I feel so sorry for any FTB's now, I thought it was hard when I first bought 30 years ago, imagine doing it now. You go to university if your lucky, you now leave with a debt, how do kids get on the ladder having that start? The down side, well it's those who paid so much for their home, well sorry, I would not let that stand in the way of this plan. I do not fancy the future without adopting something like this anyway. It will just be more of the same, just a different bucket.

For Those who might find fault, I personally have enough money and I do not have kids, so this is not really about my circumstances, it's not a VI post, it's about what the people of the UK need most now. Brown should forget his proportional representation promises and anything else he can think of, he or whoever is next in charge should get the people off he treadmill of debt we are are on now! Less debt and better homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me the money!

They could stop QE and pretend to print a bit of cash.

Building social housing (good quality wide homes with nice gardens and on sensible estates) is the only way to come through the housing crisis .. they want to employ the builders, then let them work for the good of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

High house prices is a policy objective, right from restrictive and exploitative land control up to social engineering and banking profits, everything has to be slaughtered at the altar of keeping basic accommodation unaffordable for working people. These forces are so strong the governing party are even willing to betray their core vote and allow fascists into office than address this fundamental issue. Welcome to 21st century feudalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
High house prices is a policy objective, right from restrictive and exploitative land control up to social engineering and banking profits, everything has to be slaughtered at the altar of keeping basic accommodation unaffordable for working people. These forces are so strong the governing party are even willing to betray their core vote and allow fascists into office than address this fundamental issue. Welcome to 21st century feudalism.

Is it policy? I am not convinced of that, I think it's just going along with what we always have done. I'll consider it may have been what you say up to 60 - 70 years ago, but not now. Now what I have suggested is very possible. What % of the population do you think would vote for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Say Build 4m Quality New Houses To Keep Prices Low

So we would have five million empty houses?

No, Brown / labour government estimated we needed over 2m new houses to house the growing population. They said we would have 16,500 immigrants a year from the new EU Eastern block countries a few years ago, we had 500,000 poles in two years!

If your saying we have 1m empty houses, well they are not on the market, there not available to buy or live in are they!

Edited by Tim Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
Is it policy? I am not convinced of that, I think it's just going along with what we always have done. I'll consider it may have been what you say up to 60 - 70 years ago, but not now. Now what I have suggested is very possible. What % of the population do you think would vote for this?

It seems you mistakenly believe we live a democracy, sadly this isn't the case, large land and banking interests control this country, they always have done. Parliament is there to give a veneer of democracy, and not a very good one at that recently.

The problem is actually one of Labour's own making, they passed the original Town and Country Planning Act in 1947 that restricted land use, a state monopoly on the right to develop land was seen as a more subtle but more powerful way of controlling all the land in the country that was rather less blatant and costly than nationalising all of the land (yes, that was considered). 69 per cent of the acreage of Britain is still owned by 0.6 per cent of the population today, so obviously these peoples interests had to be protected from the multitude. The Conservatives are fully supportive of course, the upper echelons are rich land owners themselves and the little people in their party are natural NIMBY's.

60-70 years ago you could actually buy up land and freely develop, not so now of course, obtaining planning permission can now lift land prices 1000% above it agricultural value, it's effectively a tax, a state backed artificial scarcity that intentionally drives housing costs ever higher and build quality ever lower.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200005

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publicati...ation.cgi?id=46

It goes hand in glove with the debt based fiat money scam of course, obviously most people are too stupid to understand these concepts but the effects of these systems are very real, i.e. working people cannot afford a small roof over their heads in one of the richest countries in the world. However, by not understanding the mechanisms behind their oppression the little people start believing in fairy tales and start voting for fascists, which suits the Establishment just fine, it takes the pressure off them so the fundamental problems never have to be addressed or solved.

Most people in government don't understand how the land monopoly scam works either, they're too busy filling their own pockets and are easily bought off, so they don't care.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and as PRIME MINISTER BROWN said on PMQ today, 20 have been built so far, and because repossessions have been held back mass building is no longer necessary.

Those people who were repossessed still have to live somewhere!

I see no other way of having affordable housing, do you? If you have enough houses everything changes, rents would come down, house prices as well. What happens if we carry on as is? boom and bust with the population with massive mortgages still. As I said, just a different bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those people who were repossessed still have to live somewhere!

I see no other way of having affordable housing, do you? If you have enough houses everything changes, rents would come down, house prices as well. What happens if we carry on as is? boom and bust with the population with massive mortgages still. As I said, just a different bucket.

I was playing devils advocate.

That said, i think its govts duty to provide 'shelter' not neccessarily housing. A mobile home would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems you mistakenly believe we live a democracy, sadly this isn't the case, large land and banking interests control this country, they always have done. Parliament is there to give a veneer of democracy, and not a very good one at that recently.

The problem is actually one of Labour's own making, they passed the original Town and Country Planning Act in 1947 that restricted land use, a state monopoly on the right to develop land was seen as a more subtle but more powerful way of controlling all the land in the country that was rather less blatant and costly than nationalising all of the land (yes, that was considered). 69 per cent of the acreage of Britain is still owned by 0.6 per cent of the population today, so obviously these peoples interests had to be protected from the multitude.

60-70 years ago you could actually buy up land and freely develop, not so now of course, obtaining planning permission can now lift land prices 1000% above it agricultural value, it's effectively a tax, a state backed artificial scarcity that intentionally drives housing costs ever higher and build quality ever lower.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200005

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publicati...ation.cgi?id=46

It goes hand in glove with the debt based fiat money scam of course, obviously most people are too stupid to understand these concepts but the effects of these systems are very real, i.e. working people cannot afford a small roof over their heads in one of the richest countries in the world. However, by not understanding the mechanisms behind their oppression the little people start believing in fairy tales and start voting for fascists, which suits the Establishment just fine, it takes the pressure off them so the fundamental problems never have to be addressed or solved.

Most people in government don't understand how the land monopoly scam works either, they're too busy filling their own pockets and are easily bought off, so they don't care.

So what's your problem with my suggestion that land is compulsory purchased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
So what's your problem with my suggestion that land is compulsory purchased?

By whom, the government? They're the one's that created this problem to begin with. The best thing the government could do is step back, start zoning and releasing land for development, let the free market take its course. The government doesn't need to purchase land from private owners, it's already one of the biggest land owners in the country, even so they make the armed forces live in shi1t holes so you can see how much they care.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing sprung to mind about this thread...

So, if the government builds 4m quality new homes, which would be council houses, conforming to the basic living standards on which the councils define, you have suddenly made 4m new homes which are far superior to 90% of the more recent private new builds.

That is a very bad prospect to everybody who has bought privately in the past few years.

Meh.

Bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By whom, the government? They're the one's that created this problem to begin with. The best thing the government could do is step back, start zoning and releasing land for development, let the free market take its course. The government doesn't need to purchase land from private owners, it's already one of the biggest land owners in the country.

But any land now whether owned by the government or privately held is not sold at 1k a plot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion is perfectly sensible, it would employ a lot of people doing something constructive and allow more to be housed. Of course, the party in power can't do it because so many in the UK associate house prices with their own wealth and with the health of the economy that anything that might reduce prices is a kind of political heresy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
But any land now whether owned by the government or privately held is not sold at 1k a plot!

Exactly, because there's a restrictive land monopoly in force, you can buy agricultural land on the free market at reasonable prices, but you're not allowed to develop it because of government decree.

Basically start from this premise and everything makes sense, the government is against you, it's like a war, they are there to stop you living freely with a good standard of living, they tax your output so you have to carry other people who chose not to put in the effort. They protect the monopolies of rich vested interests that are parasites upon the country and working people. Does the world make sense now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was playing devils advocate.

That said, i think its govts duty to provide 'shelter' not neccessarily housing. A mobile home would suffice.

I never said these were to be government owned. If the plot is only 1k almost everyone could afford to house on it, why dumb down the deal. People do not want to live in poor quality homes. We have that already, they failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has long been a mantra on HPC that there are one million properties for sale in the UK and as such why should the government encourage more building.

In my daily travels around Southampton, Salisbury, Winchester (i.e. reasonably affluent) and the rest of Hampshire, I've come to the view that most of this supposed housing stock is of such low quality or in such a dilapidated state that most of it should be knocked down and rebuilt.

My conclusion is therefore that the amount of property on the market that I would be prepared to live in (and could afford) is incredibly low.

As far as I'm concerned, compulsory purchase orders and rebuilds of high standard properties are the way forward. Any NIMBYs who want to bitch about it should be CP'd at 10% below the market value for their land.

Time to get ruthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, because there's a restrictive land monopoly in force, you can buy agricultural land on the free market at reasonable prices, but you're not allowed to develop it because of government decree.

Basically start from this premise and everything makes sense, the government is against you, it's like a war, they are there to stop you living freely with a good standard of living, they tax your output so you have to carry other people who chose not to put in the effort. They protect the monopolies of rich vested interests that are parasites upon the country and working people. Does the world make sense now?

Your just making a political statement, why can't you say that you agree or not agree this proposal is desirable. Better than that, why not adopt the proposal and promote it. I wonder sometimes why so many people look at this site but nothing much comes from it. Surly by now a petition should be winging it's way to the political parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have said here for quite a while that the country needs some 3-5m more homes.

most of them in london & SE.

wount happen though. too many NIMBYS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
One thing sprung to mind about this thread...

So, if the government builds 4m quality new homes, which would be council houses, conforming to the basic living standards on which the councils define, you have suddenly made 4m new homes which are far superior to 90% of the more recent private new builds.

Yes, you people are starting to get it now. We see cheap good quality housing as a good thing, in the public interest and to the betterment of the people, which is precisely why this prospect horrifies countless vested interests in this country and why nothing is ever built and why nothing ever becomes of these empty government pronouncements.

Expensive, small and low quality social engineered housing is a policy objective. The job of government is to make accommodation ever smaller and expensive, they do this by restricting land use, setting maximum standards like housing density then allowing the private sector to drive standards down, they also ensure a permanent mismatch between supply and demand.

Basically if you own a decent sized freehold home without some form of debt attached you are useless to the government and vested interests, so everything is done to ensure people can never achieve that status.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There has long been a mantra on HPC that there are one million properties for sale in the UK and as such why should the government encourage more building.

In my daily travels around Southampton, Salisbury, Winchester (i.e. reasonably affluent) and the rest of Hampshire, I've come to the view that most of this supposed housing stock is of such low quality or in such a dilapidated state that most of it should be knocked down and rebuilt.

My conclusion is therefore that the amount of property on the market that I would be prepared to live in (and could afford) is incredibly low.

As far as I'm concerned, compulsory purchase orders and rebuilds of high standard properties are the way forward. Any NIMBYs who want to bitch about it should be CP'd at 10% below the market value for their land.

Time to get ruthless.

Your not wrong, where are these 1m empty homes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The supply of land for housing has been restricted by planning controls. The prices of land and of houses have risen in consequence. As a result land has been used with increasing intensity with infill, 'town cramming' and smaller houses on less land-'rabbit hutches on postage stamps'; a destruction of the urban environment of the many to preserve a rural environment for a few" - Alan W. Evans, 1991

"In Britain, 90% of the population live in urban areas amounting to no more than 8% of total land space. At the same time, ecologists and planners tell us that there is simply no room to expand our bursting cities. - Land Economy, 2006.

Over 90% of the population lives on 8% of the land, just 6% of the UK is classed as 'urban'. Trunk roads including the motorway network accounts for less than 1% of the landmass. A record 13% of the UK is greenbelt, and rising, the rest is even emptier, 90% of the country is green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.