Bribing The N.i.m.b.y.s

[Milton]

Lower Taxes For Communities which encourage House Building

Communities which agree to allow new homes to be built in their area will be rewarded with lower taxes or better local facilities, the Government will announce today

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, will say that £1 billion has been set aside for councils which welcome new housing development

Mr Shapps will say that despite targets introduced by the last Labour government which were aimed at boosting house building, an average of 26,000 fewer homes were built each year between 1997 and 2009. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the country witnessed the lowest level of house building in peacetime since 1924.

Affordable properties suitable for families on low to medium incomes will bring even greater rewards, with the Government giving local authorities £1.25 for every pound inhabitants of these new homes pay in council tax.

Government's announcement that £4.5 billion will be invested over next four years to deliver up to 155,000 new affordable homes.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Dan1

[@contradevian]

Lower Taxes For Communities which encourage House Building

I prefer the stick approach. Allow new housing and we won't build a nuclear power station, or refuse incinerator on your door step.

[the shaping machine]

I prefer the stick approach. Allow new housing and we won't build a nuclear power station, or refuse incinerator on your door step.

Surely the point being addressed is that under current planning rules the NIMBYs have nothing to gain from new housing, and potentially lots to lose.

If the benefit/profit of new developments were shared out, perhaps as in this proposal by financial compensation, you might create a few YIMBYs.

.

[Stars]

Surely the point being addressed is that under current planning rules the NIMBYs have nothing to gain from new housing, and potentially lots to lose.

If the benefit/profit of new developments were shared out, perhaps as in this proposal by financial compensation, you might create a few YIMBYs.

.

So everytime you do something soemwhere you have to compensate a landowner for any inconvenience caused by your existence?

The compensation needs to go in the opposite direction - if you hold a restriction over others you should have to compensate them for it.

[the shaping machine]

So everytime you do something soemwhere you have to compensate a landowner for any inconvenience caused by your existence?

No, every time you steal something precious from someone, even if it is just by destroying the view from their window or clogging up their local road, you have the moral duty compensate them.

The compensation needs to go in the opposite direction - if you hold a restriction over others you should have to compensate them for it.

On no let me me guess LVT?

(I don't necessarily disagree with LVT, and it might help the NIMBY problem somewhat, but the issue is not the land but what you use that land for. The restrictions on planning were created and are maintained by politicians.)

.

[Stars]

No, every time you steal something precious from someone, even if it is just by destroying the view from their window or clogging up their local road, you have the moral duty compensate them.

They are not in reality having something stolen from them, they merely feel that way about it because the present land tenure system allows them to privately sell a view in a particular direction and many other advantages that don't belong to them and pocket the proceeds as if its value were their property. They end up labouring under the misapprehension that if anything changes in the world, then it is somehow theft from them. The way to untangle this isn't to give them even more stuff that isn't their property, but to switch direction and make them compensate the restricted for any restrictions they enforce

On no let me me guess LVT?

(I don't necessarily disagree with LVT, and it might help the NIMBY problem somewhat, but the issue is not the land but what you use that land for. The restrictions on planning were created and are maintained by politicians.)

But you recognised the principle of compensating for restriction without me mentioning LVT

[Milton]

No, every time you steal something precious from someone, even if it is just by destroying the view from their window or clogging up their local road, you have the moral duty compensate them.

.

Come on now........

The Moral Duty argument is either disingenuos, [or you are a well raised moral individual, who has not considered the ENTIRE moral responsibility argument]

Either way, if either the last or present government were to raise that issue, it would be open to ridicule because of the level of hypocrisy involved.

[i.E If you KNOW the reasons house prices rose so high, because the FACTS are that it was an entirely orchestrated collection of decisions, and policy, of the EVIL Labour Government.

Therefore any Moral argument for compensating people, is extremely hypocritical. [Maybe a token gesture would work. But a fair analogy would be, Im reminded of the treasury act, where a metal detector find a million pounds worth of saxon jewellry in a farmers field, yet the government offers you a Thirtieth of its value on the open market...]

We all want to see the same thing.

Huge Reductions.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Dan1

[the shaping machine]

They are not in reality having something stolen from them, they merely feel that way about it because the present land tenure system allows them to privately sell a view in a particular direction and many other advantages that don't belong to them and pocket the proceeds as if its value were their property. They end up labouring under the misapprehension that if anything changes in the world, then it is somehow theft from them. The way to untangle this isn't to give them even more stuff that isn't their property, but to switch direction and make them compensate the restricted for any restrictions they enforce

I'm talking specifically about NIMBYs, who do not even have to own property to potentially lose out due to a local development. As a principle; If a person wants to change something, and that change has an negative effect on another person, then permission should be required.

But you recognised the principle of compensating for restriction without me mentioning LVT

I could see where the ship was pointed...

But anyway, maintaining the status quo is not an unfair restriction if the change you are proposing is not victimless.

.

[the shaping machine]

Come on now........

The Moral Duty argument is either disingenuos, [or you are a well raised moral individual, who has not considered the ENTIRE moral responsibility argument]

I'm trying to address the issue raised in your first post. Paying off NIMBYs would not be a bribe but compensation for loss of something they value.

A house in a quiet location with attractive views is worth considerably more than an identical house in the middle of a council estate. The difference in monetary value is merely an analogue of utility.

It is therefore not a surprise that people oppose any change that they perceive to be negative to their utility. If the change/development is important enough to someone, why wouldn't they be prepared to pay fair compensation?

.

[Milton]

No, every time you steal something precious from someone, even if it is just by destroying the view from their window or clogging up their local road, you have the moral duty compensate them.

This is frankly not very well thought out.

Unless you belive that the governmnet should bail me out for the tens of thousands of pounds Ive been forced to waste in rent, to a 'liar loan' landlord....

Because the Labour Party inflated the biggest bubble in history whilst in office. The housing bubble.

Otherwise I would have gotten a mortgage ten years ago and paid most of it offf, instead of being forced to pay off the banks 'toxic mortgage debt', in effect paying for other peoples houses, ensuring I can never afford mine own.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

[Milton]

I'm trying to address the issue raised in your first post. Paying off NIMBYs would not be a bribe but compensation for loss of something they value.

Fair enough. In that case Value it fairly!!

[Stars]

I'm talking specifically about NIMBYs, who do not even have to own property to potentially lose out due to a local development. As a principle; If a person wants to change something and that change has an negative effect on another person, then permission should be required.

Not really a principle, unless not asking permission would be an infringement upon someone. Unless you can argue that everything you look at is somehow your property, then your case is pretty weak

But this can be resolved in a civilised way that keeps the incentive you mentioned earlier intact; you pay compensation to others to keep things the way you like it

could see where the ship was pointed...

If you understand the argument, i will leave it to nag away at your conscience

But anyway, maintaining the status quo is not an unfair restriction if the change you are proposing is not victimless.

Unless the status quo is unfair and the 'victims' are merely claiming a reduction from the loss of that arrangment

[Milton]

Fair enough. In that case Value it fairly!!

Houses are massively overpriced.

Everyone I know earns between £12k-£24k per annum.

From 1987 to 1997 the Average House Price rose from £40k to £55k.

A 33.3% rise over ten years.

From 1997 to 2007, the Average House Price rose from £55k to £190k [Nationwide Building Society figures]

A staggering 245.5% increase over the same period. [Ten years.]

The reasons for this are entirely the Labour Parties Fault.

1. "In America, the Glass-Steagall Act had protected deposit-taking commercial banks from the risky activities of the investment banks. Congress was effectively obliged to repeal the Act in 1999 because New York was losing its business to London, which had no such restrictions and the "light touch" regulation encouraged by Gordon Brown. Had Britain [brown] enacted similar legislation to Glass-Steagall, the US Act would not have been repealed, the City would have made less money but the banking collapse in both America and Britain would have been avoided"

2. Complete failure to build social housing. Labour built , an average of 26,000 fewer homes each year between 1997 and 2009. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the country witnessed the lowest level of house building in peacetime since 1924

3. The tripartite system put in place by New Labour to regulate the economy was a direct cause for the financial crisis.

The tripartite system was created when Mr Brown - as chancellor - made the Bank of England independent as soon as Labour came to power in 1997.

It included the Bank of England, the FSA and the Treasury,

Lord Vallance, chairman of the House of Lords economics affairs committee. [Tasked to look into the causes of the Crisis]

* "It is clear that in the UK the tripartite authorities of the Bank of England, FSA, and the Treasury failed to maintain financial stability, in part because it was not clear who was in charge in a crisis and because not enough attention was paid to macro-prudential supervision - oversight of the aggregate effect of the actions of individual banks - in the period when 'boom and bust' occured.

4.In his 1997 budget, Brown abolished dividend tax credits on pension funds. Companies saw the writing on the wall and immediately ended their final salary pension schemes to new employees shortly after the 'Brown raid'.* The value of pension funds have since lost around £5bn per year since the 1997 tax relief cuts. Pension funds holding the cash that almost everyone in the country had planned to use for our retirement have lost around £100 billion over 12 years. [1997-2007]

The advice Brown was given by this Treasury Paper, in 1997 was as follows:

'The changes in incentives are likely to lead to substantial changes in portfolios. Pension funds will find equity relatively less attractive, and will prefer other assets – particularly interest bearing securities and foreign equity – and may also be prompted to consider more direct property investment.'

Those funds were then channelled into fuelling an unsustainable property bubble, {BTL portfolios,} which developed because of Labours complete lack of regulation of the Banks.This was followed by rising house prices, ever increasing toxic mortgage debt, and this was followed by the bank bailouts.

Roughly 60% of houses historically acquired by First Time Buyers, were then acquired by the Buy To Let brigade. This figure rose year on year, from 1998-2003.

FTBers were priced out completely.

This is just one example of Gordon Browns incompetent decision making which helped to create the cornerstone of the debt bubble.

5.Brown had every opportunity to face the problem. Instead in 2003 Brown switched the housing inflation figures from RPI to CPI, hiding the debt. Same thing he did with PFI.

THESE are the reasons house prices rose to astronomical unsustainable levels.

Without the bank bailouts, house prices would have crashed by 60% plus.

So the only reason they have not crashed is because of Government theft of our taxes and QE.

Ive been renting for years.

So the theft of our taxes, and the devaluation of the pound in our pockets, via QE, to pay for this toxic mortgage debt.

Is In effect, forcing us to pay for others houses, whilst keeping house prices massively overinflated, ensuring we can never afford our own house. Working for nothing. No capital.

The Labour Party are incompetent economic Fascists. [i could specify the Term Fascists when directed at Labour, if requested. Would be happy to do so. Because it is ACCURATE.]

Look at Japan. 80% housing crash. Look at 50% reductions in greece. Look at the USA.

Look at property everywhere else in the world. Except the UK.

*[RANT NOT over. Rant Been going for Years. RANT will continue for more years without request for apology. Until Country roundly condemns LABOUR]

THIS is the prime example of Immoral Policy!!!!

Edited November 14, 2010 by Dan1

[Stars]

It is therefore not a surprise that people oppose any change that they perceive to be negative to their utility. If the change/development is important enough to someone, why wouldn't they be prepared to pay fair compensation?

Because no compensation is owed in that direction

If people can restrict others, shouldn't they pay them for that restriction?

Ideally, poeple who experience less local utility should be 'compensated' for the change by paying less tax.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Stars

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Houses are massively overpriced.

Everyone I know earns between £12k-£24k per annum.

From 1987 to 1997 the Average House Price rose from £40k to £55k.

A 33.3% rise over ten years.

From 1997 to 2007, the Average House Price rose from £55k to £190k [Nationwide Building Society figures]

A staggering 245.5% increase over the same period. [Ten years.]

The reasons for this are entirely the Labour Parties Fault.

1. "In America, the Glass-Steagall Act had protected deposit-taking commercial banks from the risky activities of the investment banks. Congress was effectively obliged to repeal the Act in 1999 because New York was losing its business to London, which had no such restrictions and the "light touch" regulation encouraged by Gordon Brown. Had Britain [brown] enacted similar legislation to Glass-Steagall, the US Act would not have been repealed, the City would have made less money but the banking collapse in both America and Britain would have been avoided"

2. Complete failure to build social housing. Labour built , an average of 26,000 fewer homes were built each year between 1997 and 2009. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the country witnessed the lowest level of house building in peacetime since 1924

3. The tripartite system put in place by New Labour to regulate the economy was a direct cause for the financial crisis.

The tripartite system was created when Mr Brown - as chancellor - made the Bank of England independent as soon as Labour came to power in 1997.

It included the Bank of England, the FSA and the Treasury,

Lord Vallance, chairman of the House of Lords economics affairs committee. [Tasked to look into the causes of the Crisis]

* "It is clear that in the UK the tripartite authorities of the Bank of England, FSA, and the Treasury failed to maintain financial stability, in part because it was not clear who was in charge in a crisis and because not enough attention was paid to macro-prudential supervision - oversight of the aggregate effect of the actions of individual banks - in the period when 'boom and bust' occured.

4.In his 1997 budget, Brown abolished dividend tax credits on pension funds. Companies saw the writing on the wall and immediately ended their final salary pension schemes to new employees shortly after the 'Brown raid'.* The value of pension funds have since lost around £5bn per year since the 1997 tax relief cuts. Pension funds holding the cash that almost everyone in the country had planned to use for our retirement have lost around £100 billion over 12 years. [1997-2007]

The advice Brown was given by this Treasury Paper, in 1997 was as follows:

'The changes in incentives are likely to lead to substantial changes in portfolios. Pension funds will find equity relatively less attractive, and will prefer other assets – particularly interest bearing securities and foreign equity – and may also be prompted to consider more direct property investment.'

Those funds were then channelled into fuelling an unsustainable property bubble, {BTL portfolios,} which developed because of Labours complete lack of regulation of the Banks.This was followed by rising house prices, ever increasing toxic mortgage debt, and this was followed by the bank bailouts.

Roughly 60% of houses historically acquired by First Time Buyers, were then acquired by the Buy To Let brigade. This figure rose year on year, from 1998-2003.

FTBers were priced out completely.

This is just one example of Gordon Browns incompetent decision making which helped to create the cornerstone of the debt bubble.

5.Brown had every opportunity to face the problem. Instead in 2003 Brown switched the housing inflation figures from RPI to CPI, hiding the debt. Same thing he did with PFI.

THESE are the reasons house prices rose to astronomical unsustainable levels.

Without the bank bailouts, house prices would have crashed by 60% plus.

So the only reason they have not crashed is because of Government theft of our taxes and QE.

Ive been renting for years.

So the theft of their taxes, and the devaluation of the pound in our pockets, via QE, to pay for this toxic mortgage debt.

Is In effect, forcing us to pay for others houses, whilst keeping house prices massively overinflated, ensuring we can never afford our own house. Working for nothing. No capital.

The Labour Party are incompetent economic Fascists.

Look at Japan. 80% housing crash. Look at 50% reductions in greece. Look at the USA.

Look at property everywhere else in the world. Except the UK.

Australia, Canada ?

and if you are going to consider other countries in comparison then you have to take exchange rates into account in which case the UK property market has fallen just as far as the states and anywhere in Europe, currently about 40 to 50% down from peak, its not particularly helpful if you are stuck/paid in sterling but its important when comparing on a global comparison

Edited November 14, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[Milton]

Australia, Canada ?

and if you are going to consider other countries in comparison then you have to take exchange rates into account in which case the UK property market has fallen just as far as the states and anywhere in Europe, currently about 40 to 50% down from peak, its not particularly helpful if you are stuck in sterling butits important when comparing to countries you mention

That seems to me to be purposefully misleading, when you consider the affordability argument.

For instance the average wage of the USA vs The UK? Compared against Rates, and a multitude of other factors.

The broader strokes seem to be that we are on the same page.

The only difference is that I am more bearish in my predictions of falls than you are.

Is that the only point you disagree with in my post?IF so, you must believe as I do, that Labour must be bloody hanged!

Edited November 14, 2010 by Dan1

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

That seems to me to be purposefully misleading, when you consider the affordability argument.

For instance the average wage of the USA vs The UK? Compared against Rates, and a multitude of other factors.

The broader strokes seem to be that we are on the same page.

The only difference is that I am more bearish in my predictions of falls than you are.

Is that the only point you disagree with in my post?IF so, you must believe as I do, that Labour must be bloody hanged!

i wasnt considering affordability just how far prices have fallen against different countries which you were implying were greater elsewhere, in reality falls are similar everywhere whilst affordability levels differ hugely from country to country, as for politics i dont have any particular dislike of tories more than labour or vice versa, both are equally culpable for this banking /debt boom. They just had office at different stages of it. Political parties and their perceived success or failure are as much at the whim of the economic cycle as you have unfortunately been. Labour won 3 elections, the country loved the debt as much as Gordon Brown, if you dont like the politicseconomic path your fellow countrymen chose, you should leave, its about the only real benefit of globalisation

Edited November 14, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[tim123]

Surely the point being addressed is that under current planning rules the NIMBYs have nothing to gain from new housing, and potentially lots to lose.

If the benefit/profit of new developments were shared out, perhaps as in this proposal by financial compensation, you might create a few YIMBYs.

.

But the numbers are tiny.

It's going to be "let us spoil your cute little village by building 100 new houses and we will give you 10 grand a year".

Personally, I can't see that making the slightest difference to the NIMBYs vote (and quite right too)

tim

[Milton]

Tamara, I have never heard so much ******** in all my life.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Dan1

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Tamara, I have never heard so much ******** in all my life.

You really are full of it arent you?

You must know it.

I actually dare you to ask me to respond to such utter shite as your last post...?

Can I be Any clearer?

feel free to sit there bitching and moaning about how everything is everyone elses fault or take control of your own life, it doesnt particularly impact me one way or tother

[Milton]

feel free to sit there bitching and moaning about how everything is everyone elses fault or take control of your own life, it doesnt particularly impact me one way or tother

Im moaning because i earn average wage and its my own fault i'm priced out?

.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Dan1

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

What an utter ****.....

Do you hear that everyone?

Im moaning because i earn average wage and its my own fault i'm priced out?

What an utterly pathetic W@nk3R....lol

[You dont even live in the UK, do you?]

What an ape.

look, i never said its your fault you are priced out, i clearly stated before you are a victim of the economic/credit cycle the same as MCDoom, the timing of which is purely an accident of birthdate, but its clearly your own fault if you arent happy with what you have or havent got

Edited November 14, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[IP Newcomer]

But the numbers are tiny.

It's going to be "let us spoil your cute little village by building 100 new houses and we will give you 10 grand a year".

Personally, I can't see that making the slightest difference to the NIMBYs vote (and quite right too)

tim

It will be more than that. I think it will be eight years's council tax on sale on top of the existing council tax (which will be at a higher band than if it were an existing house). A skilful council with land with development potential could massively cut its council tax bill while increasing spending and do what Wandsworth did with central government grants.

Besides even the less skilful councils will be under loads of pressure to somehow make up for the lower government grants, and raising taxes or cutting spending are both hard.

[Milton]

Comments Removed. [Too much vino after lunch yesterday......apologies......]

Edited November 15, 2010 by Dan1

[libspero]

But this can be resolved in a civilised way that keeps the incentive you mentioned earlier intact; you pay compensation to others to keep things the way you like it

Or, if we managed our population it would resolve itself without anyone needing to compensate anyone (ownership would become a liability rather than an investment).

[ Edit to add: this could equally be achieved by tarmacing over more greenbelt for those who feel it is a better solution ]

Edited November 14, 2010 by libspero