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

[Guest sillybear2]

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.

What is your proposal? That the government compulsory purchases land and undertakes a big building programme? The people who run this country will never let that happen for all the reasons I've explained to you, the vested interests are not swayed by petitions or human suffering I'm afraid.

You don't like what I'm saying because I'm being honest, people don't like the truth. The sad truth is the government doesn't care about you, and why should it, most people don't care for the government either.

[Tim Miller]

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

I am not so sure, governments will do anything to get elected, this proposal just needs media attention. Labour were promising 2 m already, then Brown mealy forgot, must be alzheimer's!

[Tim Miller]

What is your proposal? That the government compulsory purchases land and undertakes a big building programme? The people who run this country will never let that happen for all the reasons I've explained to you, the vested interests are not swayed by petitions or human suffering I'm afraid.

You don't like what I'm saying because I'm being honest, people don't like the truth. The sad truth is the government doesn't care about you, and why should it, most people don't care for the government either.

Your still at it, still negative, still all politics. If your that vocal, that angry, how about doing something about it! You seem to agree with the proposal, but your not being positive.

[Tim Miller]

"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.

Good stats, so really the main reason anyone would give for not adopting this is blown away.

[cells]

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

there are good reasons for it

Edited June 11, 2009 by cells

[Tim Miller]

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.

I'm not so sure the public would not like it. Have you read the newspapers online, I do, I would guess over 95% of those who wrote on the forums that they want lower prices. Lets face it, any parent should want this.

[Guest sillybear2]

Your still at it, still negative, still all politics. If your that vocal, that angry, how about doing something about it! You seem to agree with the proposal, but your not being positive.

I'm a realist, we're ruled by misanthropic bastards that care not for their fellow man, if that realism comes across as negative then I can only apologise, it wasn't of my own making. I'm afraid the rich elites rather go in for their conservationism, and climate change and environmentalism is the new Trotskyism amongst fashionable lefties, so any proposal for driving human development, such as house building and construction of all the supporting infrastructure that entails will meet significant political opposition from all sides of the spectrum. Imagine the opposition to the third runway at Heathrow but x100.

I've written to the government many times about land issues back when the Office Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for such things, nothing ever became of it, the aparatchiks either fail to understand the problem ('high house prices are good') or understand the social issues but are utterly powerless to do anything about it or are unable or unwilling to challenge the vested interests. The Policy Exchange published a number of pamphlets on this some time ago, I linked to one on the previous page.

The Adam Smith Institute also published a paper, as we know Adam Smith is one of Gordy's favourite historical figures, he even got him put on the £20 note. It's a shame Brown doesn't also have the same admiration for his ideas.

'Communities and Local Government' are now responsible for planning issues, the new minister for that is a one Shahid Malik, he knows all about housing issues and landlordism

Edited June 11, 2009 by sillybear2

[Tim Miller]

Nice to meet you, I dont think we have met, I am cells

Firstly let me categorically state that you are a thick ignorant bitch.

why do you think there are 1million empty homes?

Could it be that housing is a real system and no real system is 100% efficient??

people in the world die of hunger while lots of food rots, why is that? It is because the system is not 100% efficient.

Car engines are 25% efficient at converting the energy into motion, why is that? Is it because the system is real and not 100% efficient!

It doesn't matter how many houses we have, some of them will be empty just because we are never 100% efficient!

As for houses 1 million empty out of about 20million means the system is 95% efficient which is v.good for a real system.

Then there are the more detailed arguments like

most of them are shit houses in shit areas (I would ask you to visit grangtown in teesside at night, plenty of empty houses.)

most of them are ceap, burnt, walls falling down etc.

Some of them are empty due to being second homes, part time homes, up for long time sale, etc

dumb ****

I take it drugs are cheap up north or you pissed! What an angry person you are! What a shame forums have your kind.

I doubt 5% of the empty houses are good quality so we probably agree there, come back without the sad negative attitude!

[cells]

I take it drugs are cheap up north or you pissed! What an angry person you are! What a shame forums have your kind.

I doubt 5% of the empty houses are good quality so we probably agree there, come back without the sad negative attitude!

dam having read your other posts it seems you are not against building more

from the post i replied to it seemed you were trying to show an oversupply by saving we potentially have 1m empty homes, and doing so in an aregent way.

does anyone know of a way to cure a foot that has a bullet hole in it?

Edited June 11, 2009 by cells

[Guest sillybear2]

does anyone know of a way to cure a foot that has a bullet hole in it?

Shoot the other foot and pretend it's normal.

[Tim Miller]

I'm a realist, we're ruled by misanthropic bastards that care not for their fellow man, if that realism comes across as negative then I can only apologise, it wasn't of my own making. I'm afraid the rich elites rather go in for their conservationism and climate change and environmentalism is the new Trotskyism amongst fashionable lefties, so any propsoal for driving human development, such as house building and the building of all the supporting infrastructure that entails will meet significant political opposition.

I written to the government many times about land issues back when the Office Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for such things, nothing ever became of it, the aparatchiks either fail to understand the problem ('high house prices are good') or understand the social issues but are utterly powerless to do anything about it or are unable or unwilling to challenge the vested interests. The Policy Exchange published a number of pamphlets on this some time ago, I linked to one on the previous page.

The Adam Smith Institute also published a paper, as we know Adam Smith is one's of Gordy's favourite historical figures, he even go him put on the �20 note. It's a shame Brown doesn't also have the same admiration for his ideas.

'Communities and Local Government' are now responsible for planning issues, the new minister for that is a one Shahid Malik, he knows all about housing issues and landlordism

So your not new to this at all. OK, to be positive, do you not see any hope given that virtually the first thing Brown announced when he came to power was the need and intent to build 2m new houses. He made this so public, it was a promise, OK he is a politician, a lying *ucker, but that must give this proposal some legs.

[cells]

So your not new to this at all. OK, to be positive, do you not see any hope given that virtually the first thing Brown announced when he came to power was the need and intent to build 2m new houses. He made this so public, it was a promise, OK he is a politician, a lying *ucker, but that must give this proposal some legs.

For info, taking population into account

irland bult 1.1 million homes pa in the boom (75k pa scaled up relative to our population etc)

spain built 900k pa

the uk built.......175k and of that 175k a lot were houses built by knocking a perfectly fine one down or converting 1 big house into 3 flats etc so on net we built a lot less than 175k pa.

[Guest sillybear2]

So your not new to this at all. OK, to be positive, do you not see any hope given that virtually the first thing Brown announced when he came to power was the need and intent to build 2m new houses. He made this so public, it was a promise, OK he is a politician, a lying *ucker, but that must give this proposal some legs.

Shocking isn't it.

These issues aren't new, feudalism goes back a long way, the present problems with the control of land go back to at least the Enclosure Acts of 200 years ago.

I doubt anything will be done to address housing issues until people are on the streets, people know there's a problem and such continued inequality will lead to deep social divisions in the future, not to mention the problems tied into poor educational outcomes, the continual reversal of social mobility and heath and crime problems.

Like most things 'The Built Environment' is hugely politicised, it's no longer about finding a piece of land and creating work by building decent homes for decent working people, there is a whole industry of parasites, NIMBY's, environmentalists, bankers, government departments and social engineering layered on top. That's why nothing is ever done, money is spent but nothing becomes of it, not a single brick is layed.

If you don't offer men reasonable answers to their problems they start listening to unreasonable voices, that's why fascists are now being elected. It's a direct consequence of the political classes not addressing the basic needs of the populace.

Edited June 11, 2009 by sillybear2

[Tim Miller]

For info, taking population into account

irland bult 1.1 million homes pa in the boom (75k pa scaled up relative to our population etc)

spain built 900k pa

the uk built.......175k and of that 175k a lot were houses built by knocking a perfectly fine one down or converting 1 big house into 3 flats etc so on net we built a lot less than 175k pa.

Got the figures, but you do not see this proposal being adopted by any party, even though Brown made this his first very public promise. I do not know, I would put money on it he will bring this 2m houses to be built again. I just think it should be double that number.

The real interest I have is wondering how this could become a public issue.

[bogbrush]

Totally disagree with the OP.

We do not need a centrally planned solution.

Simply stop stopping people building the houses they want on any land they own. Then we'll have the quantity of cheap houses people want on abundant building land.

The government is the problem, not the solution.

[Prof]

I'm not so sure the public would not like it. Have you read the newspapers online, I do, I would guess over 95% of those who wrote on the forums that they want lower prices. Lets face it, any parent should want this.

Yes, any GOOD parent should want this. Any parent who doesn`t want this is effectively punishing their offspring for their own greed. I`ve tried and tried, but I just can`t see how higher house prices can be a real, long term benefit to the majority of the population. Yes, there are one or two positives, but expensive housing simply draws massive amounts of money away from many other areas of the economy.

[Guest sillybear2]

Totally disagree with the OP.

We do not need a centrally planned solution.

Simply stop stopping people building the houses they want on any land they own. Then we'll have the quantity of cheap houses people want on abundant building land.

The government is the problem, not the solution.

Precisely, the government created this problem to begin with then scratches it head and wastes billions trying to find a solution to its own folly.

Ferdinand Mount (David Cameron's cousin) nailed this years ago :-

http://www.newstatesman.com/200410110021

Edited June 12, 2009 by sillybear2

[Guest KingCharles1st]

Most HPC vets would know my position on this one.

It is a crime in itself that no land is being released for development, and that LAND IS THE BIGGEST SCAM GOING

IF I was back on my normal computer (as oppose to this shitty old lap top) I would easily bang off 2-3 pages on how I wouold sort this stupidity out.

[Methinkshe]

Totally disagree with the OP.

We do not need a centrally planned solution.

Simply stop stopping people building the houses they want on any land they own. Then we'll have the quantity of cheap houses people want on abundant building land.

The government is the problem, not the solution.

I totally agree (and with all sillybear2's posts as well.)

We do not need any planning laws. Individual self-interest would ensure that people don't go around building unlovely houses - they would be unsaleable, or worth very much less than well-built and beautiful houses which would command a premium on resale.

Towns and villages should be allowed to grow organically and individually as people choose to live in particular locations. Land values should reflect the interest of buyer and seller and not the interference of government.

sillybear2 is spot on, imo.

[Nomak]

When has the government's track record for building anything been as they had promised? And what would the "houses" look like - the former council houses in my city's concrete ghetto spring to mind. A lot of people seem to support this idea only for the effect it would have on the housing market, i.e. to dilute house prices. A good ambition but there are better, cheaper and quicker ways to achieve it without having to construct 4 million council houses (when an estimated 1 million UK homes are vacant).

A better idea would be a thorough deregulation of the current housing regulation system. Allow the purchase of green zone or farmland by private homeowners for home building. What we have today is a completely unfair system that keeps house prices artificially raised not unlike OPEC and DeBeers fixing the prices of oil and diamonds respectively.

[grumpy-old-man-returns]

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.

** snipped**

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.

the government always need to have a money spinner. property has been the main one for decades, so what new money spinner will replace it if they provide affordable housing at a reasonable cost ?

how will the greedy UK populace make their fortunes without being able to rip each other off ?

the green con is being set up at the moment.....& everyone's falling for it hook, line & sinker. Will this be the one for a couple of decades in times of austerity ?