Solve The Housing Crisis Without Negative Equity, Says Guarduan

[pig]

Strong stuff from the Gruniad in the OP.

Suggests that a number of their journos are starting to smell the coffee , as their offspring - Tarquin, Clarissa, et al , - discover that their humanities degrees cannot buy them something in a leafy suburb like their parents did 30yrs ago. The horror of the journos that their offspring are now living outside zone 6 or even - cough , cough - "oop north" ... is finally hitting home.

Perhaps - but while the signs are trickling through I don't think it will be properly on the agenda until the right-wing press get their head round this problem. Still, you have to start from somewhere.

[ManVsRecession]

House share! Bills included too. 600£.

I may well for a few months, before leaving London to pursue a more adventurous alternative. I'm lucky though. I've a few irons in the fire, and by the summer won't be particularly tied to London for work. To be honest I'm looking forward to getting out now, and combining promoting my business with some long distance walks I've always wanted to do.

It's surely not a sustainable situation politically though. It's effectively penalising the poorest for having the temerity to save and try to improve their lot.

[Quicken]

"In Accrington, Lancashire, a two-bedroom house might be worth £40,000, which is less than it would cost to refurbish and repair it. This means that it is not worth the owners – often absentee landlords – investing in their maintenance. Roofs leak, mould grows on walls, condensation forms and heating bills rise in poorly insulated buildings."

Why not just cut your losses and flog it to a local family? Are they desperately waiting it out until the house doubles in value ?

This is the same kind of f*cked up logic that drove Pathfinder. The relatively low prices are not the problem in these areas.

The 'radical' article criticises tinkering around the edges while essentially suggesting tinkering round the edges. It completely ignores credit/debt, LVT, lending standards, self build, big builder monopolies, landbanking, etc etc.

I could get behind build-to-let by big institutions, e.g. pension funds, but I do think we need more council housing (with 5 year tenancy terms).

[long time lurking]

This is the same kind of f*cked up logic that drove Pathfinder. The relatively low prices are not the problem in these areas.

The 'radical' article criticises tinkering around the edges while essentially suggesting tinkering round the edges. It completely ignores credit/debt, LVT, lending standards, self build, big builder monopolies, landbanking, etc etc.

I could get behind build-to-let by big institutions, e.g. pension funds, but I do think we need more council housing (with 5 year tenancy terms).

If it was a sure fire way of making easy money you would have thought they would be heavily invested already the fact they are not speaks for itself

[pig]

This is the same kind of f*cked up logic that drove Pathfinder. The relatively low prices are not the problem in these areas.

The 'radical' article criticises tinkering around the edges while essentially suggesting tinkering round the edges. It completely ignores credit/debt, LVT, lending standards, self build, big builder monopolies, landbanking, etc etc.

I could get behind build-to-let by big institutions, e.g. pension funds, but I do think we need more council housing (with 5 year tenancy terms).

With everything thats happened I can't help thinking that it will just turn into 'big boy' rent-seekers cleaning up what's left of peoples incomes.