Nimby's?

[OnionTerror]

In my area at least, I'm seeing more and more groups of ppl trying to register land as village green status, in order to get it protected from development.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305700/Derbyshire-villagers-raise-120-000-buy-field-halt-housing-development.html

For generations, Cow Field has been enjoyed by families and dog walkers. But when it went up for auction there were fears that the beauty spot would be bought by developers for a housing estate. However the 13 acres will remain green for ever after neighbours clubbed together to buy it.

Villagers gather on the 13 acres they clubbed together to buy. The heart-warming demonstration of community solidarity has meant that it will be spared forever from housing developers.

The field, in Whaley Bridge on the edge of the Peak District, has been eyed by builders for decades, and in 1995 a planning application for more than 30 homes was narrowly rejected. So when it was put on the market after the death of the owner, people living nearby launched a campaign to raise enough money to stop it falling into the hands of speculators or a supermarket chain.

The result was a stunning success - in a heart-warming demonstration of community solidarity 14 families contributed to a fund which met the asking price of £122,000. Alistair Macdonald, 60, whose home overlooks the field, said: 'There was a really strong feeling that we should try to protect this land.

'People walk their dogs there, play frisbee, sledging in winter, kite-flying, walking, all sorts, and it seemed a tragedy that it could go to a developer to build on it.

'We were worried that getting a lot of people to agree to buy it could be extremely difficult, but in the end 14 came forward.

'We didn't ask for any figure in particular, we just asked for what they wanted to put in, and in the end we had some very generous offers.

'We take the dog for a walk on the field every night and we have been stopped by so many people saying "Thank you".

'People have been thrilled because it is seen as such a community asset.'

Nye Rowlands, 71, who has lived nearby for 30 years, said: 'Attempts to build on the field date back 40 years. 'We have had to work hard but everyone said "Count me in".' Auctioneer Tom Rickard, from Frank Marshall's, said: 'It's unusual to find so many people who are prepared to commit themselves to that level of financial investment. This is not an easy thing to do.'

The largest contribution was £23,000, and the smallest was £2,700, but all the residents have an equal share in the ownership of the whole field. Their rights over the land have been recognised in the deeds to their houses, meaning that when they sell up, their share in the field will be transferred too. And with covenants preventing any construction on the land, it should be impossible for future owners to go back on the campaigners' intentions.

[DeepLurker]

I've mentioned once or twice before on this forum my antipathy for the NIMBYs who block any new construction.

But I actually quite like the approach taken by Whaley Bridge - if you don't want land to be developed, buy it! The NIMBYs actually have to get their wallets out and decide how serious they are.

Now, if this new approach could be combined with a "...and you can't block a new housing estate if you're not ready to buy the land yourselves" then it would be a pretty good system. The idiots with the money would buy up all the plots around their village... presumably they could then no longer object to young families buying up fields further away.

Edited August 25, 2010 by DeepLurker

[fluffy666]

I've mentioned once or twice before on this forum my antipathy for the NIMBYs who block any new construction.

But I actually quite like the approach taken by Whaley Bridge - if you don't want land to be developed, buy it! The NIMBYs actually have to get their wallets out and decide how serious they are.

Now, if this new approach could be combined with a "...and you can't block a new housing estate if you're not ready to buy the land yourselves" then it would be a pretty good system. The idiots with the money would buy up all the plots around their village... presumably they could then no longer object to young families buying up fields further away.

The thing that annoys me about NIMBYIsm is the way that some people seem to oppose new development regardless, and those people seem to be the loudest.

[Tired of Waiting]

The thing that annoys me about NIMBYIsm is the way that some people seem to oppose new development regardless, and those people seem to be the loudest.

+ 1

NIMBYism is despicable.

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Like I've said on here before if you're not a NIMBY you are probably an alturist. Funny though, over the past 5 years on here I have seen too much evidence of that.

[Tired of Waiting]

In my area at least, I'm seeing more and more groups of ppl trying to register land as village green status, in order to get it protected from development.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305700/Derbyshire-villagers-raise-120-000-buy-field-halt-housing-development.html

A great comment there by a "Mike Wilson, Winchester".

Someone called Adam said this: "This is great news and I hope we see a lot more of it.

It would appear that all three main parties are committed to covering what's left of rural Britain with houses and windmills. Let's not allow them"

Errr, the house you live in, Adam, used to be part of rural Britain. But someone built a house and you bought it. Now you don't want anyone else to build a house so they can live in it. Kinda selfish eh?

And, as for 'what's left of rural Britain' - do yourself a favour - fire up Google Earth in your browser and take a trip over England. I guarantee you'll be looking at grass for 92% of the time. Only 8% of this country is built on.

Why not let young people have a chance of owning their own homes, at a reasonable price, somewhere near where they grew up (where their family and friends are) instead of forcing them via high property prices (due to lack of supply) to move far away to live in cheaper houses?

- Mike Wilson, Winchester, 25/8/2010 11:16

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305700/Derbyshire-villagers-raise-120-000-buy-field-halt-housing-development.html#ixzz0xbzPue3b

[exiges]

I've mentioned once or twice before on this forum my antipathy for the NIMBYs who block any new construction.

... if you don't want land to be developed, buy it!

I disagree. Say you buy a house with lovely views (which always command a premium) in a fairly quaint English village, it's perfectly understandable to not want a block of "affordable housing" flats built to blot out your view and become downtown Beirut. OK, so it's an extreme example, but I don't see the problem with people wanting to conserve their surroundings they know and love.

Not everything should be available to be concreted over. This is why we have Grade-listed buildings, to prevent idiots irrevocably ruining things that have a cultural value.

[Cogs]

I disagree. Say you buy a house with lovely views (which always command a premium) in a fairly quaint English village, it's perfectly understandable to not want a block of "affordable housing" flats built to blot out your view and become downtown Beirut. OK, so it's an extreme example, but I don't see the problem with people wanting to conserve their surroundings they know and love.

Not everything should be available to be concreted over. This is why we have Grade-listed buildings, to prevent idiots irrevocably ruining things that have a cultural value.

A lot of items of individual selfishness are "understandable". Give and take is required. These people in their 'fairly quaint' village use electricity, they expect clean water, they want gas, manufactured products etc. Other people put up with all sorts so that is possible. This is part of the reason I was agains Key Worker schemes; people in areas that are too expensive for 'key workers' to live in should just have been left to get on with it without the government subsidising their idyllic lifestyles. Teachers can't afford to live within the mandated journey time from school? Make other arrangements. A few years without access to healthcare and education would, I suspect, have reduced the angry letters to the local council planning department. Or perhaps everyone should become a NIMBY and we can just look forward to a medieval existence.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Cogs

[@contradevian]

I disagree. Say you buy a house with lovely views (which always command a premium) in a fairly quaint English village, it's perfectly understandable to not want a block of "affordable housing" flats built to blot out your view and become downtown Beirut. OK, so it's an extreme example, but I don't see the problem with people wanting to conserve their surroundings they know and love.

Not everything should be available to be concreted over. This is why we have Grade-listed buildings, to prevent idiots irrevocably ruining things that have a cultural value.

Possibly, but in the past, these rural "idylls" were places where people worked and toiled and produced things. Not where people ambled about with their dogs before settling down for Countdown. And we might need these rural places again. I was watching on television how "locals" were opposing these "polytunnel" farms. Polytunnel farms and wind turbines might be the future of the countryside. Reading the Mail comments laughed at these "greedy developer" comments. There is hardly a house in the country that hasn't been put up by a speculative developer or builder.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Sir John Steed

[Cogs]

Possibly, but in the past, these rural "idylls" were places where people worked and toiled and produced things. Not where people ambled about with their dogs before settling down for Countdown. And we might need these rural places again. I was watching on television how "locals" were opposing these "polytunnel" farms. Polytunnel farms and wind turbines might be the future of the countryside.

Quite right. And whatever happened to the modernist vision?

I grew up thinking we'd see these things... turns out we have to live in a rotting sclerotic Victorian theme park because a certain demographic rotting selfish [you know whos] demand it for their retirement decades.

[DeepLurker]

I disagree. Say you buy a house with lovely views (which always command a premium) in a fairly quaint English village, it's perfectly understandable to not want a block of "affordable housing" flats built to blot out your view and become downtown Beirut. OK, so it's an extreme example, but I don't see the problem with people wanting to conserve their surroundings they know and love.

Not everything should be available to be concreted over. This is why we have Grade-listed buildings, to prevent idiots irrevocably ruining things that have a cultural value.

I agree with Cogs here. If you are upset by those "affordable housing" flats, then you need to reach into your pocket and pay for the privilege of that lovely view. Too many people oppose any development; maybe forcing them to put their hands where they mouths are might make a few of them think twice.

And I have no objections to grade-listed buildings etc... some things are worth preserving. However, you can't have the whole country preserved in amber, which seems to be the current thinking.

[Cogs]

Exiges; just a small additional point. Yes, those scenic views do attract a premium. I understand why people think that this something they've paid for and have a right to. The problem is that typically the people disadvantaged by this aren't the people they paid the money to. And the more you think about it in that way, the ongoing successes of NIMBYism are in some sense just another transfer from the poor to the wealthy. The Duke of Westminster makes a bundle flogging an acre to someone now dead-set on retaining their views, meanwhile the agricultural labourer down the road finds himself unable to find somewhere to live because they keep blocking the building of affordable homes.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Cogs

[pl1]

Heartwarming!

We need to get the correct arrows up. All long on please. Only take a second.

Click here to change arrows

edit: Let's get T Wading from Sussex into the green

Edited August 25, 2010 by pl1

[@contradevian]

Heartwarming!

We need to get the correct arrows up. All long on please. Only take a second.

Click here to change arrows

edit: Let's get T Wading from Sussex into the green

I've done the arrows thing already.

[pl1]

I've done the arrows thing already.

Good man. I think maybe the people the story is about have hijacked it.

I personally think even if they bought the land out of their own money it is nimbyism.

This kind of thing directly denies homes to others. Legally they are right but ethically I don't think they are.

Edited August 25, 2010 by pl1

[Tired of Waiting]

Good man. I think maybe the people the story is about have hijacked it.

I think so too - and are probably phoning friends and relatives for help!

These NIMBYs are really fanatical.

I personally think even if they bought the land out of their own money it is nimbyism.

This kind of thing directly denies homes to others. Legally they are right but ethically I don't think they are.

Agreed.

Suppose we were talking food, instead of building plots: One has enough, but buys more, just to prevent a neighbour from eating. Ethical?

What is the difference? Both are basic human needs: food and shelter.

[Tired of Waiting]

Good man. I think maybe the people the story is about have hijacked it.

I personally think even if they bought the land out of their own money it is nimbyism.

This kind of thing directly denies homes to others. Legally they are right but ethically I don't think they are.

A pearl of alienation and insensitivity there:

Austin, Harrogate - I find your comment ageist in the extreme. Baby Boomers, as you call them, had to work very very hard for what they've got - there was little or no help from the Government. Sounds like green cheese to me!

- Kate, Nairn, Highland, 25/8/2010 14:23

:angry:

[Lennon]

Exiges; just a small additional point. Yes, those scenic views do attract a premium. I understand why people think that this something they've paid for and have a right to. The problem is that typically the people disadvantaged by this aren't the people they paid the money to. And the more you think about it in that way, the ongoing successes of NIMBYism are in some sense just another transfer from the poor to the wealthy. The Duke of Westminster makes a bundle flogging an acre to someone now dead-set on retaining their views, meanwhile the agricultural labourer down the road finds himself unable to find somewhere to live because they keep blocking the building of affordable homes.

Which is why Land Value Tax is a potential answer... If affordable housing is built and spoils your view then you pay less each year in tax - so you pay more or less taxes as others do things in the area that benefit or reduce peoples desire for that land. (Might help setup the sale of repo's too if the banks had a tax bill to pay on an empty house)

[Executive Sadman]

Quite right. And whatever happened to the modernist vision?

I grew up thinking we'd see these things... turns out we have to live in a rotting sclerotic Victorian theme park because a certain demographic rotting selfish [you know whos] demand it for their retirement decades.

The stuff drawn up by frank lloyd wright and the nazis in the 1920s/30s was more futuristic than our crumbling cities.

Although i guess they tried building a futuristic city in Dubai, didnt really work out.

[EUBanana]

It's good to see the many and varied posters of HPC coming together and agreeing on something.

I hate NIMBY's too.

[northwestsmith2]

Which is why Land Value Tax is a potential answer... If affordable housing is built and spoils your view then you pay less each year in tax - so you pay more or less taxes as others do things in the area that benefit or reduce peoples desire for that land. (Might help setup the sale of repo's too if the banks had a tax bill to pay on an empty house)

It might work if the developers and the NIMBYs both participated in an auction which would result in a land tax being paid on the value of the land.

The developer bids 100K and is willing to pay 5% tax per year because they plan to use the land and profit from it. The bidding ends up at 122K with

a yearly tax of £6,100 which the NIMBYs have to pay each year instead.

[Tyler]

Did all the people bleating on about "denying land for low cost housing" not read the bit where it said that building permission was denied in the 1990's and since then it has been deemed a flood risk?

Besides, even if it was building land there's nothing to say it has to be built on, they've paid market value for the land, it's up to them if they want to leave it as a recreation area for the residents. This is no morenimbyism than someone deciding not to build a block of flats on their front garden.

[northwestsmith2]

Did all the people bleating on about "denying land for low cost housing" not read the bit where it said that building permission was denied in the 1990's and since then it has been deemed a flood risk?

I think the people who clubbed together to buy it missed that point

"The field, in Whaley Bridge on the edge of the Peak District, has been eyed by builders for decades, and in 1995 a planning application for more than 30 homes was narrowly rejected. So when it was put on the market after the death of the owner, people living nearby launched a campaign to raise enough money to stop it falling into the hands of speculators or a supermarket chain"

[Stars]

Besides, even if it was building land there's nothing to say it has to be built on, they've paid market value for the land, it's up to them if they want to leave it as a recreation area for the residents. This is no morenimbyism than someone deciding not to build a block of flats on their front garden.

A large part of the real estate problem comes from the ability to buy land and so deny others the ability to house themselves, while only compensating the previous landowner for your restriction and, to boot, making a profit from the entire process.

Some of us haven't entirely twigged this yet

[Protect Rural England]

Just take a look at society today......

Cost of being born - free - contraception for "poor people" - subsidised

Cost of education - free and or subsidised

Cost of being "brought up" - subsidised

Can't get a job - subsidised

Sick, disabled - subsidised

Illness at any time - free, subsidised

Have nowhere to live - provided - free/subsidised

Death - paupers grave - free/subsidised

And everyone wants to impose "their way of life" on others,. Charge a land tax blah blah blah. More "affordable" housing (whatever that means) blah blah blah

Let's turn the above on its head. How about charging a tax for every child born? Why not remove all wealth from every deceased person so they leave nothing and then charge a tax for dying as it will go some way to pay for the State to have funded them throughout life?

Really, why do you think there is a limitless supply of land for "affordable housing"? This country cannot feed itself as it is.