Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Masked Tulip

Why Britain Has To Launch A (Housing) Land War

Recommended Posts

Interesting that both the Mail on Sunday and the Observer have articles today calling on the Govt to change planning laws to enable building of more houses on green belt land - isn't that what both articles are advocating?

Funny how two papers have similar articles on the same day?

Thatcher's dream becomes a nightmare for a jilted generation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/05/andrew-rawnsley-house-prices-construction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this was going to be about Libya.

Me too.

TMT, perhaps a little fine-tuning on the thread's topic wouldn't go amiss... :P

article-1394244-0C675B2D00000578-885_468x303.jpg

" Britain has now reached the stage where the cost of sites for development has put purchasing a home beyond the reach of most potential first-time buyers "

+ 1 !

Excellent article!

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The market for development land has been operated like a cartel, which maximises the price. This cartel is maintained by the local authorities and the Government.

Exactly!

It would be impossible to organise a cartel with so many participants without the government organising it for them.

The idiocy of this policy is difficult to measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I thought the price of a thing was what a seller could persuade a buyer to pay for it.

Builders are trying to persuade young people and others to pay a huge sum for their wares.

It WAS the case that bankers would help...today they wont.

so, the generation is NOT priced out...they are SUBSIDISED out.

STOP SUBSIDISING BUILDERS. The longer that get handouts, the longer this generation is being hampered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.

TMT, perhaps a little fine-tuning on the thread's topic wouldn't go amiss... :P

article-1394244-0C675B2D00000578-885_468x303.jpg

" Britain has now reached the stage where the cost of sites for development has put purchasing a home beyond the reach of most potential first-time buyers "

+ 1 !

Excellent article!

So the creation of new slave box estates on green belt land is a good thing???

The UK has plenty of housing to go round, it is the current price of housing that is too high.Building over green belt land is no solution, it would only encourage TPTB to think they could grow the UK population to 80, maybe 90 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the creation of new slave box estates on green belt land is a good thing???

The UK has plenty of housing to go round, it is the current price of housing that is too high.Building over green belt land is no solution, it would only encourage TPTB to think they could grow the UK population to 80, maybe 90 million.

Like I wrote just below my avatar: "Too much credit + planning blockage = house price bubble"

Supply and demand, both.

I am totally against this high density slave box too, and ugly estates. We have plenty of space for much nicer suburbs, with reasonable gardens, and off road for 2 cars. Say wide terrace houses, on plots of 6m x 25m for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I thought the price of a thing was what a seller could persuade a buyer to pay for it.

Builders are trying to persuade young people and others to pay a huge sum for their wares.

It WAS the case that bankers would help...today they wont.

so, the generation is NOT priced out...they are SUBSIDISED out.

STOP SUBSIDISING BUILDERS. The longer that get handouts, the longer this generation is being hampered.

The builders buy up and control whatever development land there is and hence enforce the price of their shit boxes by preventing competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The builders buy up and control whatever development land there is and hence enforce the price of their shit boxes by preventing competition.

The difficulty of organising a cartel grows with the number of participants. It is practically impossible to organise a cartel with hundreds of participants, much less with hundreds of thousands. I agree with the article's author when he writes:

"The market for development land has been operated like a cartel, which maximises the price. This cartel is maintained by the local authorities and the Government."

He is right. This "cartel" has been in effect organised by the government, via the planning laws, allowing NIMBYs and local authorities (two anti-housing VIs) to have the final say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty of organising a cartel grows with the number of participants. It is practically impossible to organise a cartel with hundreds of participants, much less with hundreds of thousands. I agree with the article's author when he writes:

"The market for development land has been operated like a cartel, which maximises the price. This cartel is maintained by the local authorities and the Government."

He is right. This "cartel" has been in effect organised by the government, via the planning laws, allowing NIMBYs and local authorities (two anti-housing VIs) to have the final say.

and then when the market tries to thrash some members for being stupid, the Government subsidises them....

this is where is all goes wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of land for housing is the biggest problem WRT house price in this country.

Imagine if the woner of a plot of land was entitled to build one residence per acre or hectare of land he owned? without needing persmission from the council.

Flood the market with nice houses - nice houses drop in price. People upgrade, and we all get better houses to live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty of organising a cartel grows with the number of participants. It is practically impossible to organise a cartel with hundreds of participants, much less with hundreds of thousands. I agree with the article's author when he writes:

"The market for development land has been operated like a cartel, which maximises the price. This cartel is maintained by the local authorities and the Government."

He is right. This "cartel" has been in effect organised by the government, via the planning laws, allowing NIMBYs and local authorities (two anti-housing VIs) to have the final say.

True the govt and LA's are in control - but the small nuber of larger builders are part of it and the pricing end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of land for housing is the biggest problem WRT house price in this country.

Imagine if the woner of a plot of land was entitled to build one residence per acre or hectare of land he owned? without needing persmission from the council.

Flood the market with nice houses - nice houses drop in price. People upgrade, and we all get better houses to live in.

Hmm, I wonder what that would do to the slave box prices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I thought the price of a thing was what a seller could persuade a buyer to pay for it.

Builders are trying to persuade young people and others to pay a huge sum for their wares.

It WAS the case that bankers would help...today they wont.

so, the generation is NOT priced out...they are SUBSIDISED out.

STOP SUBSIDISING BUILDERS. The longer that get handouts, the longer this generation is being hampered.

You are right, the answer is land being released to self builders, with government control on cost. Say 10 plots were released per year for every 10 miles square in a borough area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of land for housing is the biggest problem WRT house price in this country.

Flood the market with nice houses - nice houses drop in price. People upgrade, and we all get better houses to live in.

What if Labour get back in power and allow immigration at 1 million a year again? (not making an argument against immigration as such, just pointing out that it is supply and demand).

Edited by the shaping machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Labour get back in power and allow immigration at 1 million a year again? (not making an argument against immigration as such, just pointing out that it is supply and demand).

"total of British citizens living abroad to five and a half million"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3558677/One-in-ten-British-citizens-are-living-overseas.html

"just under seven million people living in Britain were immigrants"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8451615/Almost-one-in-eight-people-living-in-UK-are-born-abroad.html

Therefore NET migration's total, accumulated, historical NET population gain = 7 - 5.5 = 1.5 million.

In a population of 60 million, this is not much. Besides, if immigrants live in a higher housing density than the expats used to live when they where here, then the NET effect on demand may be around zero, or even negative. Not to mention that many immigrants work for the construction industry, increasing supply.

In short, the numbers show that migration is a red herring regarding housing.

Though extremely useful to sell tabloids, and support housing bulls' spin.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have plenty of space for much nicer suburbs, with reasonable gardens, and off road for 2 cars. Say wide terrace houses, on plots of 6m x 25m for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"total of British citizens living abroad to five and a half million"

"just under seven million people living in Britain were immigrants"

Therefore total accumulated historical NET population gain = 7 - 5.5 = 1.5 million.

But these two figures are not directly connected i.e. if immigration were zero the number of Brits abroad would be the same. Therefore you cannot knock one figure off the other, and immigration means 7,000,000 more people need homes.

"In a population of 60 million, this [1.5 million] is not much.

In short, the numbers show that migration is a red herring regarding housing.

Even your dodgy number of 1.5 million is about 650,000 houses worth. I think that is a big figure.

Though extremely useful to sell tabloids, and support housing bulls' spin.

Equally many on the supply side argument ignore it altogether.

Edited by the shaping machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

Even your dodgy figure of 1.5 million is about 650,000 houses worth. I think that is a big figure.

(...)

The part you cut out from my post replies to this point:

"total of British citizens living abroad to five and a half million"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3558677/One-in-ten-British-citizens-are-living-overseas.html

"just under seven million people living in Britain were immigrants"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8451615/Almost-one-in-eight-people-living-in-UK-are-born-abroad.html

Therefore total accumulated historical NET population gain = 7 - 5.5 = 1.5 million.

In a population of 60 million, this is not much. Besides, if immigrants live in a higher housing density than the expats used to live when they here, then the NET effect on demand may be around zero, or even negative. Not to mention that many immigrants work for the construction industry, increasing supply.

In short, the numbers show that migration is a red herring regarding housing.

Though extremely useful to sell tabloids, and support housing bulls' spin.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part you cut out from my post replies to this point:

No it doesn't, there is no "net effect", the two figures are not connected (we don't force one person to emigrate for each person arriving).

Simply creating more houses will have no effect unless you are prepared to address the demand side as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't, there is no "net effect", the two figures are not connected (we don't force one person to emigrate for each person arriving).

Simply creating more houses will have no effect unless you are prepared to address the demand side as well.

But the reality is that the UK population has grown very little in these past 3 or 4 decades, IIRC less than 3 or 4 million. Check it out. Population growth has not been an important factor behind the house prices bubble. This is a red herring. Much ado about very little. The 2 main causes, by far, have been too much cheap credit boosting demand, and supply blocked by planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the reality is that the UK population has grown very little in these past 3 or 4 decades, IIRC less than 3 or 4 million. Check it out. Population growth has not been an important factor behind the house prices bubble. This is a red herring. Much ado about very little. The 2 main causes, by far, have been too much cheap credit boosting demand, and supply blocked by planning.

Even 4 million is significant given we apparently build about 100,000 homes a year.

As to prices, personally I think credit is by far the biggest factor. If demand and supply were the most important, you would expect house prices to follow a much more linear trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Labour get back in power and allow immigration at 1 million a year again? (not making an argument against immigration as such, just pointing out that it is supply and demand).

Well i'm an immigrant so ****** you. :P

population in britain from google public data

1997- 58.3

2009- 61.8

hardly a boom demand for housing has barely changed the problems are laws that mean people have to buid, shitty houses. No land on which to build houses so we are now building smaller shittier houses than ever before.

the USA went from 272 million to 307 million in the same period for example.

It is ludicrously expensive to buy a house here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.