Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Si1

Shropshire NIMBYs

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Si1 said:

All old f#ckers:

Quote

273855871.jpg

My favourite NIMBYs are new town NIMBYs. Everybody in that photo lives in a house that was built on greenfield land within their lifetime so that they could live in it. When they were born Telford didn't exist.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about they build an old people's home there too? And some of the new residents are carers?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/11/elderly-and-disabled-people-put-at-risk-by-care-homes-closures

If they said no to that then.....dunno, hpi won't stop a nasty fall or heart issues. Especially as hpi only happens if a person is stupid / generous enough to buy and risk make a whacking great loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Father Ted defence!

Down with that sort of thing!:

 

"The Wellington Road Action Group says not only will this development cause problems"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need more houses, we need less people...our reproduction rate is 1.9, so without immigration our population would be falling every year. 325'000 people is 10 million more people in 30 years.. you need to be dropping cement on the countryside form airplanes to deal with that.. how many people is too many? how many trees are enough? how much land do you need for food? there are limits! You can argue we are no where near them but why would you want to be? surely that is a world no one wants to live in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, macca13 said:

We don't need more houses, we need less people...our reproduction rate is 1.9, so without immigration our population would be falling every year. 325'000 people is 10 million more people in 30 years.. you need to be dropping cement on the countryside form airplanes to deal with that.. how many people is too many? how many trees are enough? how much land do you need for food? there are limits! You can argue we are no where near them but why would you want to be? surely that is a world no one wants to live in?

You are falling for the overpopulation MEME you've been forcefed by your landowning masters here IMO.

 

Seven billion people man woman and child could each be given 1,000sqft of land and fit inside the state of Texas.

 

Plenty of room on earth for everybody and everything, were we not owned by 1% of people who "own" 99% of the landmass.

 

Think about it for a few minutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thewig said:

You are falling for the overpopulation MEME you've been forcefed by your landowning masters here IMO.

 

Seven billion people man woman and child could each be given 1,000sqft of land and fit inside the state of Texas.

 

Plenty of room on earth for everybody and everything, were we not owned by 1% of people who "own" 99% of the landmass.

 

Think about it for a few minutes.

 

Whilst I do see some kind of point here, one needs to acknowledge that the Texas thing is exaggerated internet BS in terms of supporting interconnected modern human life.

Mountain regions, jungle, desert, ice and snow and flood plains prevent large amounts of land being used for a developed society.

A lot of this planet is pain inhospitable. Which is why flatfish and fertile land has always been fought over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thewig said:

You are falling for the overpopulation MEME you've been forcefed by your landowning masters here IMO.

 

Seven billion people man woman and child could each be given 1,000sqft of land and fit inside the state of Texas.

 

Plenty of room on earth for everybody and everything, were we not owned by 1% of people who "own" 99% of the landmass.

 

Think about it for a few minutes.

 

Whilst I do see some kind of point here, one needs to acknowledge that the Texas thing is exaggerated internet BS in terms of supporting interconnected modern human life.

Mountain regions, jungle, desert, ice and snow and flood plains prevent large amounts of land being used for a developed society.

A lot of this planet is plain inhospitable. Which is why flatish and fertile land has always been fought over for the obvious societal advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

Whilst I do see some kind of point here, one needs to acknowledge that the Texas thing is exaggerated internet BS in terms of supporting interconnected modern human life.

Mountain regions, jungle, desert, ice and snow and flood plains prevent large amounts of land being used for a developed society.

A lot of this planet is plain inhospitable. Which is why flatish and fertile land has always been fought over for the obvious societal advantages.

True.

To counter your valid points you can also look at how many people fit inside a block of flats and the sqft footprint per man woman child of that to get a big picture view of things.

There is plenty of flat fertile land fenced off from the common man. There is enough land on earth for everybody to have shelter and fertile land to grow enough food for themselves.

The point I'm making is you could in theory comfortably fit seven billion people into texas even if you build three storey houses with gardens.

 

There is no overcrowing on earth, there is only overcrowding in the land we've been allocated by our landowning masters.

 

 

Share this post


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

True.

To counter your valid points you can also look at how many people fit inside a block of flats and the sqft footprint per man woman child of that to get a big picture view of things.

There is plenty of flat fertile land fenced off from the common man. There is enough land on earth for everybody to have shelter and fertile land to grow enough food for themselves.

The point I'm making is you could in theory comfortably fit seven billion people into texas even if you build three storey houses with gardens.

 

There is no overcrowing on earth, there is only overcrowding in the land we've been allocated by our landowning masters.

 

 

I'll take those amalgamated points and call it even!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, macca13 said:

We don't need more houses, we need less people...our reproduction rate is 1.9, so without immigration our population would be falling every year. 325'000 people is 10 million more people in 30 years.. you need to be dropping cement on the countryside form airplanes to deal with that.. how many people is too many? how many trees are enough? how much land do you need for food? there are limits! You can argue we are no where near them but why would you want to be? surely that is a world no one wants to live in?

Exactly

Share this post


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

True.

To counter your valid points you can also look at how many people fit inside a block of flats and the sqft footprint per man woman child of that to get a big picture view of things.

There is plenty of flat fertile land fenced off from the common man. There is enough land on earth for everybody to have shelter and fertile land to grow enough food for themselves.

The point I'm making is you could in theory comfortably fit seven billion people into texas even if you build three storey houses with gardens.

 

There is no overcrowing on earth, there is only overcrowding in the land we've been allocated by our landowning masters.

 

 

The problem is that whilst you are cramming people into blocks of flats, they still need flat ground for crops, recreation, transport, schools, hospital, shops, offices, factories and so on.

Once you take away the rivers, lakes, mountains, there is not much habitable land. Wales and Scotland are good examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thewig said:

True.

To counter your valid points you can also look at how many people fit inside a block of flats and the sqft footprint per man woman child of that to get a big picture view of things.

There is plenty of flat fertile land fenced off from the common man. There is enough land on earth for everybody to have shelter and fertile land to grow enough food for themselves.

The point I'm making is you could in theory comfortably fit seven billion people into texas even if you build three storey houses with gardens.

 

There is no overcrowing on earth, there is only overcrowding in the land we've been allocated by our landowning masters.

 

 

Clearly you are looking at it from the point of view of how many people can we "physically" house in a given space whereas others look at it from the point of view of how many people do we "want" in a given space; it is a question of amenity and that is not only what these people are objecting about it is something which is recognised in planning law so it cannot be dismissed out of hand as simply NIMBY moaning.

We could go on building until we all live in high rise flats with no space a la Hong Kong; but do most people really want to live in places like this given the choice and it is choice we are talking about?

I believe the housing shortage is largely a myth and that, although shortages exist in some ares they are not general and that the "we must build more " meme is largely a call of VIs.

A great deal of the forward population growth is based on continuing high levels of immigration but when robotics really start to take off in the next ten years - never mind Brexit - and affect employment levels I wonder what the effect on immigration will be and therefore the knock on effect on housing; it could be very significant. If immigration is reduced by, say, 150,000 per annum in ten years that amounts to a city the size of Birmingham, and that is without taking account of the fact that many will have children; that is not a small change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ExiledMatty said:

We need more houses, pure and simple.

I would agree, provided 90% of all immigration is stopped. Have 10 years of virtually no immigration and then we will see what true housing requirements are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they objected and campaigned against mass immigration...presumably they thought these immigrants would live somewhere else...you reap what you sow.

A miserable bunch of selfish old farts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, honkydonkey said:

You think when automation occurs and we get to sit on our arses all day with a citizen's income LESS people will want to come here?!?!?!?

This rather assumes that they won't be subject to automation themselves, that we'll be the only ones; rather unlikely I would have thought.

And the assumption that we will be receiving a citizens income is just that - an assumption and furthermore an assumption that all will get it; too many assumptions for me there.

Furthermore there is substantial demographic pressure in many of the East European countries compounded by emigration to countries like the UK and Brexit is likely to discourage immigration even if it doesn't stop it completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Wayward said:

I doubt they objected and campaigned against mass immigration...presumably they thought these immigrants would live somewhere else...you reap what you sow.

A miserable bunch of selfish old farts.

Did many people campaign against mass immigration? I'd be willing to bet that most of these people did in fact vote for Brexit.

As for them being a miserable bunch of selfish old farts I can't comment on that but I think that the grounds on which they are objecting is in fact a legitimate one in the planning laws so it cannot be dismissed as special pleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Noallegiance said:

A lot of this planet is pain inhospitable. Which is why flatfish and fertile land has always been fought over.

Mmm. The great flatfish war of 1829 was particularly brutal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Millaise said:

Mmm. The great flatfish war of 1829 was particularly brutal.

Lol I didn't notice that.

Pretty sure I've never typed flatfish before on predictive text or any other medium.

#groundbreaking

Edited by Noallegiance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thewig said:

You are falling for the overpopulation MEME you've been forcefed by your landowning masters here IMO.

 

Seven billion people man woman and child could each be given 1,000sqft of land and fit inside the state of Texas.

 

Plenty of room on earth for everybody and everything, were we not owned by 1% of people who "own" 99% of the landmass.

 

Think about it for a few minutes.

 

I know everyone thinks global warming is a load of old guff, but I strongly believe from everything I have read that within this lifetime we are going to see some major environmental disasters from sea level rise.. people won't believe it until it is too late and costal towns disappear under water, some tropical islands are already gone and have been abandoned by their inhabitants. Why do people not get that our biggest enemy is ourselves.

people = pollution.. population increase = economy growth.. the problem is the greedy scumbags that run the world want ever increasing populations to drive profits, the cost of this greed is global disaster, I am guessing it's the old, I don't care I will be dead by the time that happens adage.. things like Heathrow expansion and fracking show they could not care less..

Flooding will be the biggest problem with housing within the next century.. 

a 2 meter rise in sea levels would see towns like bognor disappear.. it's coming at break neck speed.. believe.. 

https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/climate-change/lowLat.html

 

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.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 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.