“Nasty Piece of work” Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I drove through Aylesbury for the first time in 10 years, and that would be improved by being knocked down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Absolutely correct decision. why desecrate our history for this ludicrous myth that there is some sort of housing "shortage"? The problem has NOTHING whatsoever to do with so-called "shortages". the problem is one of price, nothing more, nothing less. And the price is so high because of what exactly ?. Before you say "easy credit", remember that credit can only inflate prices where there is a shortage (which is why credit does not continually inflate the prices of cars, phones, carpets, TVs and just about anything else we commonly buy on credit). Inflated prices are not sustainable where there is a surplus no matter how much credit is a available - see Ireland. Edited March 14, 2015 by goldbug9999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You're right, but developments which involve adding buildings at the edge of existing urban areas are opposed by even more people, namely the ones living in those existing urban areas. Don't really get this shortage of land in urban areas. Just look at the acres of unused land in railway corridors etc. even in the south east...often just land lying to waste and overgrown. Also decaying former industrial sites. Don't think urban houses adjoining these eye sores would be that nimby about it. We're very good at starting on new stuff and tearing up virgin farmland when millions of acres lay to waste including the south east. Planners are like kids with a toy, bored with existing stuff and have to start on something new. HS2 comes to mind. A railway network in need of maintenace but sod the existing lines and build an exciting new bit to play with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qetesuesi Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Thats why the politicians of left and right love distraction issues. They can keep on plundering while the people are pre-occupied with things like gay marriage that have no bearing on the politicians ability to plunder. It's a strange kind of 'distraction' that the politicos tried to sneak in under the radar as much as possible.... First, no main party manifesto promised it. The nearest they came to that was a Tory 'supplemental' document offering to ' consider' it, which was published 3 days before the election and thus was irrelevant to postal voters. In any case, the subsequent coalition agreement never mentioned it. Then they denied us a referendum on it while giving one on AV; and in the consultation, over 80% of respondents who expressed a view were against it. No matter, they rammed it through parliament anyway, without even mentioning it in the relevant Queen's Speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver surfer Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Build the houses, then go and build more houses. Build in the south east and wherever there are jobs. Build at least 300,000 houses a year and keep building at that rate for a decade or more. I want my children to be able to buy a property within a reasonable commute of decent jobs, and not to be crushed by the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 And the price is so high because of what exactly ?. Before you say "easy credit", remember that credit can only inflate prices where there is a shortage (which is why credit does not continually inflate the prices of cars, phones, carpets, TVs and just about anything else we commonly buy on credit). Inflated prices are not sustainable where there is a surplus no matter how much credit is a available - see Ireland. Nope. Demand grows if the availability of credit gives people the idea prices will inflate with time, even if they dont need something. Vast numbers of condo's in places like Vegas and Florida were never lived in, people still bought. There isnt just demand to live in something, there is speculative demand. And credit is inflating the price of cars...why else do you think dealers are so hellbent on offering it! Because the overall income they get is higher! 10 years ago I could pick up a 5 year old family car, low miles, FSH for a little over a grand. Now I cant even find an astra for less than £3500. Certainly not a shortage of new cars built in the last few years. Doesnt matter in what sphere it is...housing, cars, further education. More credit/financialization = higher prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Don't really get this shortage of land in urban areas. Just look at the acres of unused land in railway corridors etc. even in the south east...often just land lying to waste and overgrown. Also decaying former industrial sites. Don't think urban houses adjoining these eye sores would be that nimby about it. We're very good at starting on new stuff and tearing up virgin farmland when millions of acres lay to waste including the south east. Planners are like kids with a toy, bored with existing stuff and have to start on something new. HS2 comes to mind. A railway network in need of maintenace but sod the existing lines and build an exciting new bit to play with. Not sure about the planners...its the opportunity for fraud that they like. Look at Japan. Billions on roads to nowhere....couldnt be bothered to spend a few million on installing the recommended upgrades for their nuke power grid. Why...probably because the upgrades had a known cost, roads in unpredictable mountainous terrain do not...therefore lots of chance to add fraudulent costs to the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It's a strange kind of 'distraction' that the politicos tried to sneak in under the radar as much as possible.... First, no main party manifesto promised it. The nearest they came to that was a Tory 'supplemental' document offering to ' consider' it, which was published 3 days before the election and thus was irrelevant to postal voters. In any case, the subsequent coalition agreement never mentioned it. Then they denied us a referendum on it while giving one on AV; and in the consultation, over 80% of respondents who expressed a view were against it. No matter, they rammed it through parliament anyway, without even mentioning it in the relevant Queen's Speech. They have a habit of this. No 1997 manifesto mentioned us joining the European court of Human Rights...no policies regarding a lack of human rights were mentioned...it wasnt an issue...and yet now we've had over 15 years of barmy decisions due to membership of a court no one called for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 So first there was a village full of commoners, then a church was built for the commoners, then a rich landowner kicked the commoners off the land and knocked down the village, now landowners don't want a village built next to the church because it will spoil its glorious isolation. This is the history they should be teaching in schools, not all that nonsense about Henry VIII's wives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bambam Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 nearly 3000 new homes in essentially a rural area where there are no jobs and it would be housing for commuters what about the infrastructure - you can't just plant 3000 homes in a field much as the farmer who owns it want to make a killing this is a more balanced view of the refusal http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more-news/abandoned-church-and-narrow-railway-bridge-scupper-fleet-marston-plans-1-6545053 It's not really all that rural - it's three miles from Aylesbury, not exactly the Outer Hebrides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bambam Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 They have a habit of this. No 1997 manifesto mentioned us joining the European court of Human Rights...no policies regarding a lack of human rights were mentioned...it wasnt an issue...and yet now we've had over 15 years of barmy decisions due to membership of a court no one called for. It did. Labour Manifesto 1997: Citizens should have statutory rights to enforce their human rights in the UK courts. We will by statute incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law to bring these rights home and allow our people access to them in their national courts. The incorporation of the European Convention will establish a floor, not a ceiling, for human rights. Parliament will remain free to enhance these rights, for example by a Freedom of Information Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Why do we "need" these houses at all? +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Build the houses, then go and build more houses. Build in the south east and wherever there are jobs. Build at least 300,000 houses a year and keep building at that rate for a decade or more. I want my children to be able to buy a property within a reasonable commute of decent jobs, and not to be crushed by the cost. What jobs Have you not heard there are over 750000 under 25s out off work, a lot more counting those on post school courses.The way things are going with unemployment and the rapid increase of the labour force there my be no jobs for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Parliament will remain free to enhance these rights, for example by a Freedom of Information Act. Mind you The Liar, when it came to the crunch, managed to circumvent that one with the dedicated use of the shredder. Simple - no information to have a freedom of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 And the price is so high because of what exactly ?. Before you say "easy credit", remember that credit can only inflate prices where there is a shortage (which is why credit does not continually inflate the prices of cars, phones, carpets, TVs and just about anything else we commonly buy on credit). Inflated prices are not sustainable where there is a surplus no matter how much credit is a available - see Ireland. No. This has been said and addressed so many times on this forum over the years. I don't think there's an overall shortage, although probably in places people most want to live. Regardless that's not at all the same question or answer as to why prices are high. Many markets in goods and services have little to no barrier to entry, meaning supply is elastic (responds to price) so cost determines price as suppliers compete. Land is a cartel/monopoly, meaning supply of housing and housing services (rents) is inelastic and affordability determines price (demand, not cost). The price a buyer or renter pays is often higher than the cost of provision. Look at the effects of taxation to reflect the difference. If/when taxes on cars, phones, carpets, TVs etc go up, the price goes up because production costs in a competitive market can't be reduced to compensate. When taxes on houses go up, the price goes down because there's no competition and it lowers the max monopoly profit, and the present value of future income streams. People need to stop assessing land markets as commensurate with competitive markets. They're not the same, and until that's understood will never get your head around what's going on and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Who cares about a bunch of 'sky fairy' worshipers who have been brainwashed by hundreds of years of propaganda invented by the church to keep the sheeple in their place. Knock it down and make use of the land. Complete waste of space and frankly the history of some make believe Father Christmas like person is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I don't think there's an overall shortage, although probably in places people most want to live. So why are rents even is shitty places so high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 So why are rents even is shitty places so high? Thanks for missing the point. But in reply - because they can. Because rents are housing services - still primarily a function of land and location value. Prices are skewed more than rents due to leverage, but that doesn't mean rents are optimal or market-determined. Our entire social, employment, welfare, fiscal and monetary system and related subsidies - i.e. everything - appears to be aligned with extracting as much private rent-seeking flow from land as possible. What do you think would happen if Housing Benefit, BTL bungs etc were eliminated overnight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blod Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 That area is really badly developed. Everyone has to pass through the centre of Aylesbury. This scheme was only put forward for the developers benefit. Access to any services would have to be via the A41. There are virtually no jobs in the area. Our attitude seems to be that just building the housing and some how employment will follow. Statist It should be the other way round, generate the employment then let housing grow organically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Thanks for missing the point. But in reply - because they can. Because rents are housing services - still primarily a function of land and location value. Prices are skewed more than rents due to leverage, but that doesn't mean rents are optimal or market-determined. Our entire social, employment, welfare, fiscal and monetary system and related subsidies - i.e. everything - appears to be aligned with extracting as much private rent-seeking flow from land as possible. What do you think would happen if Housing Benefit, BTL bungs etc were eliminated overnight? Correct, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy soy Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Why do we "need" these houses at all? We need them more than we need another unused and remote church. In fact we need about 245,000 homes a year built to cope with population growth and household formation. We haven't hit that target since about 1986. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 That area is really badly developed. Everyone has to pass through the centre of Aylesbury. This scheme was only put forward for the developers benefit. Access to any services would have to be via the A41. There are virtually no jobs in the area. Our attitude seems to be that just building the housing and some how employment will follow. Statist It should be the other way round, generate the employment then let housing grow organically. The thing that really makes me sick about these big developments is you get these 5000+ 'SUEs' (another few going up in northants)...the site is carved up between 4 or 5 big developers, with nothing for the smaller developers or self builders. We end up with everything looking the same. The traffic situation, as you say, is dire. The A41 was supposed to bypass aylesbury 30 years back. Still no plans to finish that job... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Anecdote, a few years ago when renting we wanted to move and put in an offer on a rental .... someone on housing benefit came and saw the property, put in an asking price rent offer and signed the contract. More rent than we offered and guaranteed by the taxpayer (ironic in that the taxpayer was me outbidding myself). If not speculative demand who will buy the 54,000 (IIRC) £1m flats that are being built around London? I bet. If nothing changes then for all intents and purposes we will all collectively be buying those £1m flats. What's incredibly frustrating about the housing-shortage perspective is not that it may or may not be true - I'm all for building loads more so long as it's not just the taxpayer buying up private banked land and gifting huge forever windfall gains - but that it has little do with determining prices in the real estate market. Developers know it, banks know it, the government and BoE know it, economists know it; yet for some reason the general public remain blinkered hoping for change catalysed by mass building that's not going to happen because this isn't a market in TVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blod Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 The thing that really makes me sick about these big developments is you get these 5000+ 'SUEs' (another few going up in northants)...the site is carved up between 4 or 5 big developers, with nothing for the smaller developers or self builders. We end up with everything looking the same. The traffic situation, as you say, is dire. The A41 was supposed to bypass aylesbury 30 years back. Still no plans to finish that job... Couldn't agree more. These estates are the sinkholes of the future. I knew a lass worked for one of the large developer. She'd never dream of living on one of their estates, in her words "there for chavs". What this developer is doing is expecting the issue of access to be solved to the east of the site by the public sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Anecdote, a few years ago when renting we wanted to move and put in an offer on a rental .... someone on housing benefit came and saw the property, put in an asking price rent offer and signed the contract. More rent than we offered and guaranteed by the taxpayer (ironic in that the taxpayer was me outbidding myself). If not speculative demand who will buy the 54,000 (IIRC) £1m flats that are being built around London? One good reason for a benefit cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.