Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

As Britain's Housing Crisis Deepens... Meet The Nimbys Who Could Thwart Osborne's Plan To Build A Million Homes

Recommended Posts

The problem with "build a million houses" is then a few years later you're going to need to build another million, then another, then another... It's no wonder that more and more people are crying "enough", however much some others like to denigrate them as "nimbys". Deal with the cause of that then a good deal of the objection to catching up to where we are now will fizzle out to nothing more than a bit of grumbling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would find a way of building all we need and more if they thought the majority of the populas that wanted one could afford to pay the price they want for one.

They do not build them because although the banks do throw money at people they are not that stupid to throw anything that anyone asks......I can asure you if they said here is a million a million would take it and more.

When people earn £2.50 who would build them a home costing £250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfectly well housed people saying 'sort out x,y or z before we build more' when they generally hold the balance of power and vote for parties which have a demonstrable track record of doing precisely the opposite to their wishes is bordering on cruelty. I am not prepared to be punished (any further) for the actions of parties I have never voted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments do not build homes.....far too many people with power and influence have vested interests to see homes especially cheaper homes for people earning lower incomes in incecure jobs are not built near them......many get rich using their poorly paid hard work, I think they want them to stay like that.....treat them mean keep them keen and forever hopeful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that even the right-wing Daily Mail is now taking sides in the housing debate. And not with the side you would expect. "Nimbys", "housing crisis deepens". All very bearish phrases.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-3262613/As-Britain-s-housing-crisis-deepens-Meet-nimbys-thwart-Osborne-s-plan-build-million-homes.html

Set up like a kipper springs to mind.

The only people who are going to win out the London mega bubble are the money launderers.

50% return on nice fresh clean money......lovely jubbly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that even the right-wing Daily Mail is now taking sides in the housing debate. And not with the side you would expect. "Nimbys", "housing crisis deepens". All very bearish phrases.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-3262613/As-Britain-s-housing-crisis-deepens-Meet-nimbys-thwart-Osborne-s-plan-build-million-homes.html

I'm investing in incontinence pants - should be a few extra used today :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove all props, subsidies, tax incentives, help to whatever, QE, and there will cease to be a housing crisis.

....but,but the builders won't build and the banks can't lend without their subsides.....and the people can't pay without their 0% subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....but,but the builders won't build and the banks can't lend without their subsides.....and the people can't pay without their 0% subsidy.

Then prices will fall and people currently renting will be able to buy a house from a repossessed, over leveraged, buy to let landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then prices will fall and people currently renting will be able to buy a house from a repossessed, over leveraged, buy to let landlord.

No no no, with such thick properdee advertisement additions to many newspapers these days, with so many cranes in London like never (2007/2008 pales..), there is obviously staggering shortage in supply, more staggering shortage than in 2008 :blink::wacko::unsure: ..... :wub: ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then prices will fall and people currently renting will be able to buy a house from a repossessed, over leveraged, buy to let landlord.

You're having a laugh Bruce. What would the Telegraph do with it's aspirational stories of people who can 'make it' at 24 if every feckless scrounger who has an aversion to maximal debt and state subsidies can buy a home at a reasonable cost?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/11881798/At-24-we-have-a-house-and-earn-100000.-What-could-possibly-go-wrong.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove all props, subsidies, tax incentives, help to whatever, QE, and there will cease to be a housing crisis.

No,no, we can't have any common sense like that. :unsure: Better to build our way out of the affordability crisis. Didn't it work in Ireland and Spain? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surrey is, I believe, the NIMBY capital of ther UK. EVERY proposed housing development will have a horde of screaming boomers knocking up flyers and being angry on BBC radio Surrey.

On the radio I heard some fun-sponge moaning about them proposing to convert a disused airfield...about as brownfield as you can get.

They always wheel out the line about 'we appreciate the need for houses, just not here' and always mention the 'impact on house prices' as a concern. How we dare we reduce their unearned capital gain?

Had one of the old dears knock on my door the other day, pointed out my flat was built in 1995 and if some NIMBY had stopped that I wouldn't have anywhere to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather we didn't have to build any more houses.

But over decades our leaders have deliberately encouraged population growth in order to try and pay pensions and make sure that the GDP figure keeps rising. We have 30 years of infrastructure debt to make up, even if the population stabilised tomorrow. So NIMBYs are going to have to suck it up - you voted for the idiots who've led us here.

It doesn't help that almost all newbuilds (even most of the high-end ones) are terrible. Most apartment buildings in the UK honestly look more like office blocks, and family homes look like dollhouses.

Though if I was running things I'd leave the green belt alone - let idle pensioners gambol through the cowpats and fields of oilseed. I rather not live two hours from my job. Instead I'd tear down low-density housing in cities and build (solid, stone) apartment blocks. I don't think any other global city wastes so much space on crumbling terraces and tiny private gardens as London does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surrey is, I believe, the NIMBY capital of ther UK. EVERY proposed housing development will have a horde of screaming boomers knocking up flyers and being angry on BBC radio Surrey.

On the radio I heard some fun-sponge moaning about them proposing to convert a disused airfield...about as brownfield as you can get.

They always wheel out the line about 'we appreciate the need for houses, just not here' and always mention the 'impact on house prices' as a concern. How we dare we reduce their unearned capital gain?

Had one of the old dears knock on my door the other day, pointed out my flat was built in 1995 and if some NIMBY had stopped that I wouldn't have anywhere to live.

I think you live near me - didn't see you at the meeting!

I used to live in a place built in 1450. Happy to point out that NONE of the nimby's would have a place to live if the previous occupiers had been like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather we didn't have to build any more houses.

But over decades our leaders have deliberately encouraged population growth in order to try and pay pensions and make sure that the GDP figure keeps rising. We have 30 years of infrastructure debt to make up, even if the population stabilised tomorrow. So NIMBYs are going to have to suck it up - you voted for the idiots who've led us here.

That's the problem all right, although I certainly didn't vote for the idiots who lead us here, and like I said I'm not at all keen on "NIMBY", which is all too often used to denigrate those against. How much longer are people going to have to "suck it up" for (since there's no sign of the population stabilising), while the quality of life decreases? All that's left is to be very, very depressed about the future.

As implied earlier (I think, or was it another thread?) if the population did stabalise though I think that the amount of objection would decrease significantly since the "thin end of the wedge" fear would have much less supporting it. It's really a win-win. It's hard not to get angry though when all you're being asked to do is support managing the decline, by people who seem to think that they're improving things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you live near me - didn't see you at the meeting!

I used to live in a place built in 1450. Happy to point out that NONE of the nimby's would have a place to live if the previous occupiers had been like them.

If the previous people had been more like them perhaps we wouldn't have reached this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the previous people had been more like them perhaps we wouldn't have reached this situation.

The previous people understood that you needed to build quality affordable houses for your workers to live in. The current cohort don't get that at all.

edit. typo

Edited by CunningPlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem all right, although I certainly didn't vote for the idiots who lead us here, and like I said I'm not at all keen on "NIMBY", which is all too often used to denigrate those against. How much longer are people going to have to "suck it up" for (since there's no sign of the population stabilising), while the quality of life decreases? All that's left is to be very, very depressed about the future.

As implied earlier (I think, or was it another thread?) if the population did stabalise though I think that the amount of objection would decrease significantly since the "thin end of the wedge" fear would have much less supporting it. It's really a win-win. It's hard not to get angry though when all you're being asked to do is support managing the decline, by people who seem to think that they're improving things.

I think I agree. They warned in the 70s about overpopulation. But most of the world didn't listen - and capitalism requires exponential growth anyway, and the easiest way to get 'growth' is apparently to add more people.

Malthus looks to be slowly being proved right. Even as technological advances increase the carrying capacity of the planet, there's still only so much space per person, and you're right, living in a world where there's ever decreasing amounts of space per person isn't much fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather we didn't have to build any more houses.

But over decades our leaders have deliberately encouraged population growth in order to try and pay pensions and make sure that the GDP figure keeps rising. We have 30 years of infrastructure debt to make up, even if the population stabilised tomorrow. So NIMBYs are going to have to suck it up - you voted for the idiots who've led us here.

It doesn't help that almost all newbuilds (even most of the high-end ones) are terrible. Most apartment buildings in the UK honestly look more like office blocks, and family homes look like dollhouses.

Though if I was running things I'd leave the green belt alone - let idle pensioners gambol through the cowpats and fields of oilseed. I rather not live two hours from my job. Instead I'd tear down low-density housing in cities and build (solid, stone) apartment blocks. I don't think any other global city wastes so much space on crumbling terraces and tiny private gardens as London does.

I agree with this. there is no shortage of land in inner cities especially the north. Nottingham has just spent one billion over the last decade on its tram network and 60 million renovating the Victorian midland Railway station which has now one of the finest facades of its type in the world.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/86/06/860684_dbe0e2c9.jpg

But what beggars belief is that around the station and the tram hub there are hundreds of acres of derelict land. The council could do something really special, give the land away on the condition the developer built something decent that would last 500 years instead of the usual brutalist concrete rubbish that lasts about ten. There should not really be any cost to the land, it is lain to waste and not producing any council tax or business rates. But the council are bloody stupid up here. The only developments are indeed high rise that resemble offices and are destined for early demolition and high levels of non occupancy.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I agree. They warned in the 70s about overpopulation. But most of the world didn't listen - and capitalism requires exponential growth anyway, and the easiest way to get 'growth' is apparently to add more people.

Malthus looks to be slowly being proved right. Even as technological advances increase the carrying capacity of the planet, there's still only so much space per person, and you're right, living in a world where there's ever decreasing amounts of space per person isn't much fun.

To a degree "it depends". Britain could certainly support a lot more people than it does but is a long way past supporting the most desirable number (neither too empty nor too busy). People don't need much space to actually survive but personally I find a very noticeable difference between somewhere with numerous large towns in, say, a 50 mile radius and somewhere with maybe one or two, and it's very much in the favour of the former. And for people who like the bright lights the towns and cities are still there. Fewer people would mean a better quality of life, even if there's a bit less actual wealth, at least in my opinion.

And even if you don't agree with that if the population increases indefinitely it'll become a problem by anyone's definition eventually.

Where does that leave me? Not liking people who say "build! build! build!", that's for certain, and rationally I have to accept that anyone not against population increase who says "Don't build!" are just as bad or worse. But what is the right position to take when TPTB aren't prepared to follow the only course you think is right? It's one thing to support the lesser evil when there's no better alternative (so I can't say "no more people and no more building", as much as I'd like to, since there is a backlog), another when the best choice is being deliberately withheld or ignored.

Continual growth being a necessity is another bugbear. It it happens it should be the means of providing good new stuff, not simply be required to avoid collapse.

All leaves me miserable, depressed, and very, very bleak about the future.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   81 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.