Old Fart Nimby Tells The Young To Bog Off.

[gf3]

There's loads of land. The problem is that if you try and build on it the government mafia will come and bulldoze whatever you built, whether you own the land or not.

Unless you pay the requisite bribes, like Barratts do.

There are also loads of nimbys who don't want houses built in the village but of coarse because their kids were brought up there they should have special privilege it's the outsiders you understand that are pushing up prices. and in 20 years time the outsiders will be saying the same thing.

[(Blizzard)]

There are also loads of nimbys who don't want houses built in the village but of coarse because their kids were brought up there they should have special privilege it's the outsiders you understand that are pushing up prices. and in 20 years time the outsiders will be saying the same thing.

I suspect, sadly, you are right, but that is not my argument, nor I suspect anyone else's here.

I am merely pointing out that If it were not for the government, and in particular the last few governments, these problems would not exist.

All it requires for young people in rural communities to stay in those communities is that the government stop evicting them. . No handouts, no special treatment.

You have the argument exactly backwards. It is special treatment and handouts for landlords and landowners that have created the problem, all of our problems with housing in fact.

[EUBanana]

There are also loads of nimbys who don't want houses built in the village but of coarse because their kids were brought up there they should have special privilege it's the outsiders you understand that are pushing up prices. and in 20 years time the outsiders will be saying the same thing.

Well yeah, people are selfish buggers.

Which is precisely why they shouldn't even have the power to stick a spanner in other people's business, when it's none of their business.

If there is a cultural problem it's still one created by the government. As already pointed out these laws are not that old. Therefore, the notion of hordes of nimbies is not that old either.

Edited March 15, 2013 by EUBanana

[Tired of Waiting]

I suspect, sadly, you are right, but that is not my argument, nor I suspect anyone else's here.

I am merely pointing out that If it were not for the government, and in particular the last few governments, these problems would not exist.

All it requires for young people in rural communities to stay in those communities is that the government stop evicting them. . No handouts, no special treatment.

You have the argument exactly backwards. It is special treatment and handouts for landlords and landowners that have created the problem, all of our problems with housing in fact.

+ 1

Besides, the ugliness (and even the existence) of these estates is a direct consequence of our planning system. Before it, in the 20s and 30s, private developers were building what the market ( = families) wanted, and could afford without "planning gains": suburbs with semi-detached family homes. At the time these were affordable by white collar working classes.

Then the elites campaigns against "urban sprawl" began, helped by the BBC. After all, these people, were using too much of "our" land (8m x 30m?), "beyond their station", "too big for their boots". (BTW, the BBC campaign against this class has never really ended. Remember the caricature of it via "Hyacinth Bucket". )

Thousands of large and horrible estates have been built since. I don't know of any other country in the world that has so many horrendous houses.

.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Tired of Waiting

[shipbuilder]

+ 1

Besides, the ugliness (and even the existence) of these estates is a direct consequence of our planning system. Before it, in the 20s and 30s, private developers were building what the market ( = families) wanted, and could afford without "planning gains": suburbs with semi-detached family homes. At the time these were affordable by white collar working classes.

Then the elites campaigns against "urban sprawl" began, helped by the BBC. After all, these people, were using too much of "our" land (8m x 30m?), "beyond their station", "too big for their boots". (BTW, the BBC campaign against this class has never really ended. Remember the caricature of it via "Hyacinth Bucket". )

Thousands of large and horrible estates have been built since. I don't know of any other country in the world that has so many horrendous houses.

.

Would you reform the planning system or get rid of it?

[Tired of Waiting]

Would you reform the planning system or get rid of it?

Not sure. Probably a radical liberalisation, like 90% more liberal than the current system, just preventing the worst abuses. But the main problem to be addressed is the issue of "who decide". Under the current system future buyers have no power, whereas current local residents have all the power. Would be future residents are not even present in these local decisions. The younger generation and the overall need of the country have no voice or power over local NIMBYs.

---------------

Edit:

Or this: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=188660

Or just copy Germany's.

.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Tired of Waiting

[gf3]

Not sure. Probably a radical liberalisation, like 90% more liberal than the current system, just preventing the worst abuses. But the main problem to be addressed is the issue of "who decide". Under the current system future buyers have no power, whereas current local residents have all the power. Would be future residents are not even present in these local decisions. The younger generation and the overall need of the country have no voice or power over local NIMBYs.

I think we need to start charging council tax on land banks as if the houses had been built. This would concentrate the minds of the land bank owners.

[sleepwello'nights]

Yes, but people brought up in villages don't need special rights.

People have lived in communities they were born into for most of human history.

The reason it is now difficult Is because the government, of which landowners are a part, is stopping them.

Basic economics though isn't it. Supply and demand. The planning laws restrict supply so the price of a house in a village goes up. I've often thought that villages should be able to expand. It would be nice if they could be self sustaining communities. But, when you start looking at the disadvantages of living in them today they don't seem so attractive.

Shortly after I left school I got a job in the West Country, working in a hotel in a small town. People of my own age I met were all looking forward to using their new, or about to be found, independence to leave the area and move to a large city. Looking forward in anticipation of the excitement and opportunities that might be found.

It seems a fairly natural cycle that young adults would want to leave to expand their horizons later to return to similar environments when the yearning for the perceived stability and security of their early life grew.

[Tired of Waiting]

I think we need to start charging council tax on land banks as if the houses had been built. This would concentrate the minds of the land bank owners.

Definitely. And a Land Value Tax would rationalise land use across the country, including already built up areas. There are lots of eyesores around, just sitting on very valuable land. A LVT would sort all of these quite fast.

[cybernoid]

to except that all they can afford is this.

You missed a step.

Don't forget there was a housing bubble, the problem is that they can only afford the worse housing despite both adults in full time unstable work for which university qualifications were needed and cannot afford children of their own, whereas their parents afforded much better housing with only one of them working in a stable job for life not requiring a degree and they could afford children.

That is actually difficult to accept. They don't think they're special, they just think they are people.

[erranta]

+ 1

Besides, the ugliness (and even the existence) of these estates is a direct consequence of our planning system. Before it, in the 20s and 30s, private developers were building what the market ( = families) wanted, and could afford without "planning gains": suburbs with semi-detached family homes. At the time these were affordable by white collar working classes.

Then the elites campaigns against "urban sprawl" began, helped by the BBC. After all, these people, were using too much of "our" land (8m x 30m?), "beyond their station", "too big for their boots". (BTW, the BBC campaign against this class has never really ended. Remember the caricature of it via "Hyacinth Bucket". )

Thousands of large and horrible estates have been built since. I don't know of any other country in the world that has so many horrendous houses.

.

Yep

Our wonderful, trustworthy Political leaders changed sensible housebuilding regs in 1971-72 which have led to the uber rip-off rabbit hutches built by the sewn up monopoly beast companies (building MAFIA)

Each recession took out all the smaller building companies around the land whist these beasts got bigger and bigger (Faux modern Masons behind it?)

At the time (71-72) a house had to have a garage, built on certain size plot of land, minimum size of all rooms, garden etc etc

[(Blizzard)]

Basic economics though isn't it. Supply and demand. The planning laws restrict supply so the price of a house in a village goes up. I've often thought that villages should be able to expand. It would be nice if they could be self sustaining communities. But, when you start looking at the disadvantages of living in them today they don't seem so attractive.

Shortly after I left school I got a job in the West Country, working in a hotel in a small town. People of my own age I met were all looking forward to using their new, or about to be found, independence to leave the area and move to a large city. Looking forward in anticipation of the excitement and opportunities that might be found.

It seems a fairly natural cycle that young adults would want to leave to expand their horizons later to return to similar environments when the yearning for the perceived stability and security of their early life grew.

Yes, supply and demand of government planning permits (and at a deeper level, all land 'ownership' is just a planning permit of one kind or another).

As it happens, I also think you are right about young people moving away from villages. I think the example of a young person who does want to stay - perhaps to raise their own families in the place they were raised - is a really good one, although rare in practice, because it demonstrates so many aspects of the economic crisis of the last fifteen years in such clear terms.

Young people who can't dream of affording the lifestyle of their parents.

Outbid by bubble money from London, not allowed a permit to build anywhere new.

Housing scarcity right in the middle of vast acres of empty land.

Middle-class parents with run-of-the-mill jobs living in million pound cottages. Sad to see their kids go, but determined to stop that new housing estate being built nearby no matter what the cost.

And all the time the shops and pubs are closing as the communities are slowly strangled.

Sound familiar? It's all of Britain in microcosm.

[erranta]

Yes, supply and demand of government planning permits (and at a deeper level, all land 'ownership' is just a planning permit of one kind or another).

As it happens, I also think you are right about young people moving away from villages. I think the example of a young person who does want to stay - perhaps to raise their own families in the place they were raised - is a really good one, although rare in practice, because it demonstrates so many aspects of the economic crisis of the last fifteen years in such clear terms.

Young people who can't dream of affording the lifestyle of their parents.

Outbid by bubble money from London, not allowed a permit to build anywhere new.

Housing scarcity right in the middle of vast acres of empty land.

Middle-class parents with run-of-the-mill jobs living in million pound cottages. Sad to see their kids go, but determined to stop that new housing estate being built nearby no matter what the cost.

And all the time the shops and pubs are closing as the communities are slowly strangled.

Sound familiar? It's all of Britain in microcosm.

If U think your words thru

- U R almost entirely Wrong!

The elites have fixed it for themselves so that farmers can pass land to farming progeny without duties

- ditto those of Stately home/major farming land (CAP troughing) who escape death duties and UK (infrastructure) taxes by registering their property ownership with overseaes ltd companies and 'trusts'

Even their companies that pay for the pleb servants/estate workers are offshore tax avoiding!

Our elites have craftily fixed things for themselves so Only the plebs (whom they suck huge hidden forced taxation 'subsidies' from) are forced to move out of the area.

Barely NOTHING changes for the Landowners (decades of disarming the general public hint hint Knives/guns)

They love playing divide & conquer - stirring up the plebs to squabble between themselves over the tidbits left over for them (overpriced sewn-up building land)

The planning laws are purposely manipulated to cause as much obstruction as possible - whilst extracting cash (paid obstructions) off those who want to better themselves all through the process!

You can perhaps see why many elites have helicopters /personal Jets(Queen) on permanant standby.

Edited March 16, 2013 by erranta

[(Blizzard)]

If U think your words thru

- U R almost entirely Wrong!

The elites have fixed it for themselves so that farmers can pass land to farming progeny without duties

- ditto those of Stately home/major farming land (CAP troughing) who escape death duties and UK (infrastructure) taxes by registering their property ownership with overseaes ltd companies and 'trusts'

Even their companies that pay for the pleb servants/estate workers are offshore tax avoiding!

Our elites have craftily fixed things for themselves so Only the plebs (whom they suck huge hidden forced taxation 'subsidies' from) are forced to move out of the area.

They love playing divide & conquer - stirring up the plebs to squabble between themselves over the tidbits left over for them (overpriced sewn-up building land)

The planning laws are purposely manuipulated to cause as much obstruction as possible - whilst extracting cash(obstructions) off those who want to better themselves all through the process!

You can perhaps see why many elites have helicopters /personal Jets(Queen) on permanant standby.

Well yes, I don't disagree with any of that, but I really don't see how it contradicts what I said.

[erranta]

Well yes, I don't disagree with any of that, but I really don't see how it contradicts what I said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

although rare in practice, because it demonstrates so many aspects of the economic crisis of the last fifteen years in such clear terms.

Young people who can't dream of affording the lifestyle of their parents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The elites have it all sewn up tighter and tighter as they have corruptly taken more and more of the Wealth from the UK people since the 70's

(proved with the disengaging of pleb wage rises (chart) and elite owned business 'productivity')

The Cotswolds are the country retreat play areas of the overpaid, troughing, 'horsey' set.

(JC for you idol luvvers) Clarkeson, tax avoiding multi-millionaire can't be bothered to pay his full share of road up keeping (taxes for infrastructure) on the roads he likes motor-mouthing down

The Banker crashes are caused by the elites (manipulating)

Imagine how interest rates have been played over the years to screw more interest out of the public

The BOE/Govt shot themselves in the foot again with this current era of 'held down' zero interest rates proving they use them to manipulate for their gain

(to screw over/force any major savers into house buying for btl or some other area)

Edited March 16, 2013 by erranta

[thecrashingisles]

Some top NIMBY action in Slough South Bucks - http://propertyspotter.blogspot.com/2013/05/nimby-nation.html

[thecrashingisles]

Some top NIMBY action in Slough South Bucks - http://propertyspotter.blogspot.com/2013/05/nimby-nation.html

Some of the campaigners are beyond parody. They don't do themselves any favours with things like this:

http://whatisafreeschool.org.uk/2013/05/14/friendly-bombs-come-fall-on-slough-with-apologies-to-john-betjamin/

Stoke Poges mustn’t hear my plan,

To steal away their Greenbelt Land.

To cause them hell on country roads

The KSA we will impose.

But the locals heard of their sneaky plan,

And objected all, both woman and man.

They organised their own committee

And wrote to people in the City.

The MPs they did at first curse,

Bombarded by letters, emails and verse.

Stoke Poges won’t take it lying down,

We’ll have to help them out of town.

We so offered to help them find a home

Where their school is needed

But they just moaned.

So friendly bombs come fall on Slough,

We’ll make room for a school somehow!

[Executive Sadman]

Some of the campaigners are beyond parody. They don't do themselves any favours with things like this:

http://whatisafreeschool.org.uk/2013/05/14/friendly-bombs-come-fall-on-slough-with-apologies-to-john-betjamin/

Presumably the selfish git who wrote that lives underground, in some kind of dwelling that doesnt besmirch the landscape above.

Oh, wait, silly me, theyre talking about other people. Only they shouldnt be allowed a home. Im alright jack, after all.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

This is the fault of the 1%-ers not the older generations. Be nice to them, they were young once, yadda, yadda.

[Blue Peter]

Presumably the selfish git who wrote that lives underground, in some kind of dwelling that doesnt besmirch the landscape above.

I think that you'll find that their homes contribute to the landscape. By a huge stroke of luck, the optimum number of homes has been built everywhere (except brownfield sites in grotty towns)....

Peter.

[dryrot]

I think that you'll find that their homes contribute to the landscape. By a huge stroke of luck, the optimum number of homes has been built everywhere (except brownfield sites in grotty towns)...

Acronym time: NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard (of course)

I prefer NODAM: No Development After Mine

[Riedquat]

I think that you'll find that their homes contribute to the landscape. By a huge stroke of luck, the optimum number of homes has been built everywhere (except brownfield sites in grotty towns)....

The optimum number of homes for a pleasant to live in country was surpassed long ago. People like most of the posters here just want to push it down the slope into crappiness even faster. It wouldn't be quite as annoying if they argued it was a necessary evil but most don't seem to give a crap about that and just start screaming NIMBY as soon as someone suggests that building anything anywhere might not always be a good idea.

[Blue Peter]

The optimum number of homes for a pleasant to live in country was surpassed long ago. People like most of the posters here just want to push it down the slope into crappiness even faster. It wouldn't be quite as annoying if they argued it was a necessary evil but most don't seem to give a crap about that and just start screaming NIMBY as soon as someone suggests that building anything anywhere might not always be a good idea.

Quite possibly. But we are faced with the fact of a population increasing faster than the number of dwellings, and the quality of those dwellings appears to be lower (nice house with nice spacious garden as opposed to small flat). Call it a necessary evil or a responsibility,

Peter.

[Dorkins]

The optimum number of homes for a pleasant to live in country was surpassed long ago. People like most of the posters here just want to push it down the slope into crappiness even faster. It wouldn't be quite as annoying if they argued it was a necessary evil but most don't seem to give a crap about that and just start screaming NIMBY as soon as someone suggests that building anything anywhere might not always be a good idea.

I like the idea that the people opposing these developments are timidly suggesting that it might not always be a good idea to build anything anywhere and that the people in favour are fanatics obsessed with construction who shout down their opponents and refuse to see the other side of the argument. The reality is almost the exact opposite.

[TrevorS]

The optimum number of homes for a pleasant to live in country was surpassed long ago. People like most of the posters here just want to push it down the slope into crappiness even faster. It wouldn't be quite as annoying if they argued it was a necessary evil but most don't seem to give a crap about that and just start screaming NIMBY as soon as someone suggests that building anything anywhere might not always be a good idea.

Pleasant for who? A family of 5 living in a 1-bed flat? Or a NIMBY enjoying a view over a field?

Extreme arguments are more a staple feature of NIMBY groups, who usually start screaming that building anything anywhere would be the end of the world as we know it. There is a word for them, and it isn't "annoying".