Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

I wanted to re-post this great ZH article on Agenda 21.  I've always felt the UK suffers from a housing crisis that simply shouldn't exist.  I went up in my first plane flight in 2002'ish and it was an eye opener because I know for a fact now there is a lot of space that could be used for housing and we'd still have plenty of green lands.  Policy in government could force larger plots or even a garden but instead we have the smallest builds in the EU (while we're still in it).  In the MSM everyone is quick to blame each other, builders holding land and not building, planning permission and in the end nothing really changes.

 

www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-13/what-exactly-agenda-21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're barking up the wrong tree.  The reason for the UK housing crisis is the availability of credit, availability of government support structures for buyers, support for BTL and the incentives for pensioners to stay in their homes / lack of an incentive for them to move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

increasing supply will help ease pressure on prices. Yes easy credit and gov props have driven prices into Lala land but without competitive bidding ie lack of supply v demand then there is no mechanism for inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"The private sector is not delivering either, and planning laws are not the problem: there are 400,000 outstanding planning permissions for residential housing. We have been underinvesting in domestic housing for a long time."

--Professor Steve Nickell (quote from here)

Recently I've noticed a few of the "let's get rid of all the current rules and let the free market have a go" on this forum, when IMO quite the opposite is required.

There is absolutely no rule, incentive, or law stopping housebuilding companies from reducing the supply of new properties, maintaining high prices of newbuilds, or landbanking. Greenbelt is irrelevant to that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Young and the Nestless said:

Recently I've noticed a few of the "let's get rid of all the current rules and let the free market have a go" on this forum, when IMO quite the opposite is required.

Yes, you'll clearly be much better off with even more central planning of housing. God forbid that someone could just buy or claim a piece of land and build a house on it, the way our ancestors did for thousands of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be away to enable Joe public to buy a piece of land build a home and live off the land if he wants to. That just isnt poosible despite as you say vast swathes of green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MarkG said:

Yes, you'll clearly be much better off with even more central planning of housing. God forbid that someone could just buy or claim a piece of land and build a house on it, the way our ancestors did for thousands of years.

Yes much better off. For building new actual affordable* housing (i.e. where the private sector has failed). That is what central government is for. 

(In fact I'm pretty sure all the major parties will come to realise this and we may even see some official policies.)

We currently only have 'central planning' to prevent-to-build.

"someone could just buy or claim a piece of land and build a house on it"

Please think through what you are suggesting/implying in practical terms, and whether it is a true long term plan?

(Firstly I'm not sure how removing planning restrictions in a city would be helpful if we suddenly have blocks of flats appearing in people's back gardens, though that may not be what you are referring to.)

Secondly if you are referring only to countryside & greenfield plots, ask what would happen at that point...? Answer: i.) Those lucky enough to own some land would either be able to build-on or sell that land, ii.) the price of that land would increase overnight, i.e. another short term windfall/carpetbag event, mainly for landowners i.e. the top 2%. iii.) There is no guarantee that land in practicable/developable areas would be affordable after the law has changed, because there is no regulation or downward pressure on the price. iv) Still no discouragement of land-banking so the large land-owners are still the same land owners. v) Crown/government-owned land is still government-owned. vi) If government-owned land is drip-fed to individuals at lower than market rates, how long would that land last? vii) Would it really create or encourage cities and suburbs that are as well-designed as the ones that are 'planned' (not claiming that Milton Keynes is spectacular but it provided housing)? viii) It seems to me that this dissemination of land would require some central planning... then why not just centrally plan the housebuilding directly and take advantages of economies of scale? (Circle complete.)

 

(*Affordable meaning 4x median earnings for the area.)

Edited by The Young and the Nestless
edit to clarify 'housebuilding'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government could pass a bill to allow planning to be approved on land at a fixed cost. Say 50,000 per acre. Instead of the current price of 1 mill per acre. OK the farmer or owner makes the 48k, if say the land was worth 2k agricultural before.  You are now able to buy your own house on your own land for say 150k. The price of housing would drop overnight and there is still and incentive for a landowner to sell.

 

 

Edited by GreenDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Young and the Nestless said:

Yes much better off. For building new actual affordable* housing (i.e. where the private sector has failed). That is what central government is for.

The private sector hasn't failed. The private sector IS NOT ALLOWED to build houses where people want to build houses. It can only build where your beloved government says it can.

How hard is this to understand?

Over here, you can buy some land, go to the house shop, buy one you like the look of, load it on the back of a truck, and drive it to your land to live in. What's so awful about that? Why do you think they need the government to tell them that them can't build a house on their own land?

As for 'planned' suburbs, all those lovely villages so many people want to live in were built long before government planning. People just built stuff where it made sense to build. Whereas the depressing Stalinist tower-blocks of the 60s and 70s where no-one wants to live were wonders of central planning.

What possible reason can you have to imagine that government knows how people should live better than they do, when it's proven such a dismal failure?

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MarkG said:

The private sector hasn't failed. The private sector IS NOT ALLOWED to build houses where people want to build houses. It can only build where your beloved government says it can.

How hard is this to understand?

 

If people are looking for truly affordable housing, then yes the private sector has failed spectacularly. I don't think I've seen any new builds at all where the price of a house is within 4x median salary for that area. It just doesn't happen. The free market dictates that without regulations dictating otherwise - profits of publicly held housebuilding companies will be maximised for shareholders benefit, not minimised for the home buyer's benefit.

The private sector refuses to build when it still has overpriced new builds to sell. They are private companies, and stop any new supply when inventory is sitting unsold. The private sector prices its new builds according to the existing market in that area (a market which we know is too expensive) -instead-of- being priced at cost of building + cost of operations + small profit. They have shareholders and obviously would rather give the shareholders the best profit than give housebuyers cheaper houses.

 

30 minutes ago, MarkG said:

Over here, you can buy some land, go to the house shop, buy one you like the look of, load it on the back of a truck, and drive it to your land to live in. What's so awful about that? Why do you think they need the government to tell them that them can't build a house on their own land?

As for 'planned' suburbs, all those lovely villages so many people want to live in were built long before government planning. People just built stuff where it made sense to build. Whereas the depressing Stalinist tower-blocks of the 60s and 70s where no-one wants to live were wonders of central planning.

What possible reason can you have to imagine that government knows how people should live better than they do, when it's proven such a dismal failure?

 

Let's look at the stats here: Canada has a population density of 9.42 per square mile. Unfortunately Britain has a population density of 694 per square mile.  

(i.e. Canada's population is still 7 times less dense right now, than Britain's population was in the early 1600s)!

Therefore, we can't have the same policy in the UK as Canada, sorry!

55 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

The government could pass a bill to allow planning to be approved on land at a fixed cost. Say 50,000 per acre. Instead of the current price of 1 mill per acre. OK the farmer or owner makes the 48k, if say the land was worth 2k agricultural before.  You are now able to buy your own house on your own land for say 150k. The price of housing would drop overnight and there is still and incentive for a landowner to sell.

Interesting idea, but ultimately: Would it create or encourage cities and suburbs that are as well-designed as the ones that are 'planned'? 

Sporadic, hodge-podge housing, which doesn't make efficient use of the limited available space doesn't sound like a great idea. Perhaps more suited to the early 1600s when Britain's population was under 6 million. We have over 65 million population, so perhaps now is not the ideal time to play "fast and loose" with our land/resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading when I noticed Agenda 21 was only put in place in 1992.

We had plenty of housing booms before then.

@dgul is right. The key to the whole mess is credit and the ability to speculate with land. There are some contributory factors, but I doubt they account for more than 20-30% of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Young and the Nestless said:

Let's look at the stats here: Canada has a population density of 9.42 per square mile. Unfortunately Britain has a population density of 694 per square mile.  

(i.e. Canada's population is still 7 times less dense right now, than Britain's population was in the early 1600s)!

Therefore, we can't have the same policy in the UK as Canada, sorry!

 

Most of Canada is uninhabited wilderness with no utilities or transport links.  The vast majority of the Canadian population lives in a relatively thin (say 150 mile) strip that is next to the US border - generally within 100 miles of one of the major cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got talking to a friend and he told me about the attempts by the UN to reduce the population of Earth from 7bn to 500million along with the carbon emission mullarky.

Made me wonder if the herding of human sheeple into the box pens in London and other cities is being facilitated through the taxation such as section 24 "Tenant Tax" not to mention the redistribution of wealth. It felt to me that Agenda 21 needs house prices to stay high so that people cant afford their own houses and they don't reproduce.

 

Got me thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Seems you don't understand how markets work. ? What do suppose would happen to prices if half the population died in some pandemic....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/10/2016 at 11:00 PM, GreenDevil said:

There needs to be away to enable Joe public to buy a piece of land build a home and live off the land if he wants to. That just isnt poosible despite as you say vast swathes of green.

It can be done ,by a buying 11 acres of agricultural land and follow the information in the book from Field to Farm think outside the box. Don't be a slave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, crazypabs said:

Got talking to a friend and he told me about the attempts by the UN to reduce the population of Earth from 7bn to 500million along with the carbon emission mullarky.

Made me wonder if the herding of human sheeple into the box pens in London and other cities is being facilitated through the taxation such as section 24 "Tenant Tax" not to mention the redistribution of wealth. It felt to me that Agenda 21 needs house prices to stay high so that people cant afford their own houses and they don't reproduce.

 

Got me thinking!

He/She would be referring to the Georgia guidestones. Pretty creepy:

Georgia Guidesones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, crazypabs said:

...so that people cant afford their own houses and they don't reproduce.

Then why increase immigration massively - particularly from groups who tend to have large families? Makes little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2016 at 12:51 AM, The Young and the Nestless said:

all those lovely villages so many people want to live in were built long before government planning

They had planning.

" But from the moment of its foundation as a burgh in circa 1150, St Andrews took on an ambitious two-street form, in which there was careful planning and control of street alignments and of the size of burgage plots. St Andrews was a planned town from that time onwards; it fits the pattern of the 'planted' town of medieval Europe of the twelfth and later centuries. "

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/621832.pdf

And building regs.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/regulations.shtml



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maynardgravy said:

Then why increase immigration massively - particularly from groups who tend to have large families? Makes little sense.

facilitate society breakdown and martial law and control of reproduction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, crazypabs said:

Got talking to a friend and he told me about the attempts by the UN to reduce the population of Earth from 7bn to 500million along with the carbon emission mullarky.

Made me wonder if the herding of human sheeple into the box pens in London and other cities is being facilitated through the taxation such as section 24 "Tenant Tax" not to mention the redistribution of wealth. It felt to me that Agenda 21 needs house prices to stay high so that people cant afford their own houses and they don't reproduce.

 

Got me thinking!

That's mad.

You bumped a mad as badgers thread from fully two years ago and not word one about the bump, not a word of explanation of why you were bumping it. Straight into some batsh!t mental idiocy about the UN reducing the population of the Earth.

Two things. 

Firstly, are you as relieved as I am that the UN population plans are restricted to the Earth and leave the Clangers and the inhabitants of Button Moon free to explore their own resource/population equilibrium?

Secondly, "Agenda 21" WTF? If you're looking for a context to peddle some totally delusional idiocy you may have picked the wrong ground. Let's dance.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way crazypabs, I'm in earnest.

tumblr_mfs88dveBe1qa3ogoo1_500.gif

Let's debate this mad as badgers 'Agenda 21' madness

Mods: Please bump this thread to an appropriate graveyard sub-forum. How busy is the 'Mansions in Aberdeen - buy now, buy everything' thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the lad himself giving 'Agenda 21' his full attention.

Over 2.2M views! Are people waking up, or paying too much attention to a nutter?

I am neither endorsing this presentation, nor condemning it, but I do find some of it to be thought provoking, and the variety of comments is interesting.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   91 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.