Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Spirit

May declares war on nimbys

Recommended Posts

As usual there's an issue not touched on or even mentioned in the article (it never is) but one of the comments does touch on it (quoted below).

I'm not against more new houses as it does help matters but more new houses alone means the UK will still have a similar problem in 5 years time.

Quote

Not more houses, we need fewer people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I would expect nothing to come of such statements (how many times have political people claimed they are going to do something against the VIs?)

But given her political vulnerability she might as well try. What's the worst the VIs and her party do to her....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the article

Quote

The official continued: ‘Selfish Conservative councils need to smell the coffee or there won’t be a Conservative Party in the future. We have to end the tyranny of a well-heeled minority who complain a maisonette built within five miles will ruin the view from their “in-out driveways” and orangeries. They have the cash and clout to bully everyone else into submission. It cannot go on.’

It's what we've been saying here for years. The demographic shift is a big part of it.

And that line about orangeries will upset the right people, haha :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, maverick73 said:

Building more solves little, as prices are unaffordable ?

Presumably the people building them will want to sell them in which case they have to lower the price to what people can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, maverick73 said:

Building more solves little, as prices are unaffordable ?

 

2 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

No earthly use building them if a) they are unaffordable for the vast majority, or b] they are targeted largely at overseas investors.  

 

 

Agree on both counts.. sadly it's the usual story of the Government pointing the finger in the wrong direction for the culprit of the housing crisis - conveniently using it as an excuse to allow their builder-mates to make a killing erecting bland, poor quality, generic crap all over greenbelt land "because of the housing crisis". 

More wholly unnecessary, distractionary smoke and mirrors ********.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very clear to see that the rich only want the rich living near to them......let them live together and see who left to do the dirty work......best not to live in a place where clearly not wanted.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, winkie said:

Very clear to see that the rich only want the rich living near to them......let them live together 

They Forget they are an easier target if they live together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build baby build. 

The cost of the house is not the problem, it is the cost of the land with planning permission. If you vastly increase to supply of said land then your land cost fall. Job done. 

Of course, let us not forget that the landowners will still do jolly well out of this. Sitting on some agricultural land and somebody waves a pen about and suddenly you're allowed to build 4,000 houses on it = more likely and lucrative than winning the lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May and the rest of the liberal left establishment have an insatiable thirst for mass immigration and you can't encourage 600,000+ a year to come here without mass building on green belt.  If May can make NIMBYISM illegal the builders will have the green light (pun not intended) to concrete over our once green and pleasant land to house the 10's of millions on their way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The housebuilders want restricted supply and high prices; they have no interest in more supply and lower prices; why would they? 

And the only reason the builders want a change in the planning regulations is to enable them to build in more attractive areas for premium prices; it has nothing to do with enabling them to build in greater volumes; it is a rent extraction device.

Edited by crouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"May declares war on people who are sick of the ever-creeping tide of suburban sh1t that's been spreading like a cancer throughout the country for decades, and wants to promote large-scale vandalism." It's sickening to hear people who actively want to make the country are more unpleasant place. There is no circle of hell too deep for them, no punishment too cruel. There's too much built up already (save for those blind fools who seem to think "what's the problem, there are still a lot more fields than buildings"), the solution has to be to address the number of people issue - which would address itself if immigration was sorted, so no need for having to worry about unethical approaches. Might still be faced with a one-off building spree as a necessary evil, but it needs to come with a plan for "no more."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts

-There will never be enough houses all the time the population increases by hundreds of thousands a year while supply doesn't keep up to provide suitably sized/located housing.

-Regulation is unable to force big monopoly builders to make their housing available in volumes and at prices that ensure affordability. (We've all seen how the likes of Persimmon et al build new estates and then drip-feed the houses onto the market to ensure supply is artificially constrained and prices remain high)

-Infrastructure costs must be factored in to new housing developments, especially when they are greenfield sites. (somebody must pay for schools, medical facilities and roads). Do the wages of newcomers support the provision of these (I suspect not)

-Somebody has to pay for the never-ending and desperate expansion of the population as demographics shift and the population ages.

The aging population wants increasingly to use housing wealth to support itself during its latter years. Again, this money doesn't simply get into circulation by magic. Even if your house is worth xx hundreds of thousands, it must be underwritten by increasing housing prices / uptake of new houses below and that process has ground to a halt.

The solution, as ever, will involve a redistribution of responsibility as well as wealth - this will not please the existing holders of so-called wealth. The mentality of the existing holders of wealth is that they are entitled to something for nothing and that the young will pay.

 

Share this post


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

A few thoughts

-There will never be enough houses all the time the population increases by hundreds of thousands a year while supply doesn't keep up to provide suitably sized/located housing.

There is loads of excess stock in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether this is actually the right thing to do - building houses vs dealing with the economic imbalances across generations/ excess credit, ZIRP etc - It is very telling that, post election, the Conservatives suddenly "get it" and realise that doubling down on existing policy is not going to work anymore.

This part is especially telling:

Quote

The official continued: ‘Selfish Conservative councils need to smell the coffee or there won’t be a Conservative Party in the future.

Yep, the young are growing up without any stake in their country, and they can't earn it by working hard or getting educated, so the only thing on offer right now is socialism. Unless the Tories can come up with a better offer, and soon, then this housing wealth is going to get redistributed by a future leftwing government, and potentially in a disorderly way. 

Now I agree that building houses isn't really the answer, but being seen to be doing something is important for politicians trying to get elected, and for the Tories this is the least-bad option, tackling the financial sector or overseas speculation for example comes at much higher cost to the Tory party and its MPs. They're not going to get big party donations or non-executive directorships from a bunch of ageing nimbys in Maidenhead who are declining in numbers each year, and who would sooner vote for Lord Buckethead than Jeremy Corbyn anyway. 

Edited by Bear Goggles
typos

Share this post


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

May and the rest of the liberal left establishment have an insatiable thirst for mass immigration and you can't encourage 600,000+ a year to come here without mass building on green belt.  If May can make NIMBYISM illegal the builders will have the green light (pun not intended) to concrete over our once green and pleasant land to house the 10's of millions on their way. 

" the 10's of millions on their way. " of piniless immigrants can't afford to buy houses at 15x average wage.

The only solution the establishment/bankers now have is the mother of all house price collapses.

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pindar said:

A few thoughts

-There will never be enough houses all the time the population increases by hundreds of thousands a year while supply doesn't keep up to provide suitably sized/located housing.

-Regulation is unable to force big monopoly builders to make their housing available in volumes and at prices that ensure affordability. (We've all seen how the likes of Persimmon et al build new estates and then drip-feed the houses onto the market to ensure supply is artificially constrained and prices remain high)

-Infrastructure costs must be factored in to new housing developments, especially when they are greenfield sites. (somebody must pay for schools, medical facilities and roads). Do the wages of newcomers support the provision of these (I suspect not)

-Somebody has to pay for the never-ending and desperate expansion of the population as demographics shift and the population ages.

The aging population wants increasingly to use housing wealth to support itself during its latter years. Again, this money doesn't simply get into circulation by magic. Even if your house is worth xx hundreds of thousands, it must be underwritten by increasing housing prices / uptake of new houses below and that process has ground to a halt.

The solution, as ever, will involve a redistribution of responsibility as well as wealth - this will not please the existing holders of so-called wealth. The mentality of the existing holders of wealth is that they are entitled to something for nothing and that the young will pay.

 

I think it's becoming increasingly likely that we'll get some kind of mass social housing programme at some point in the near future. What form this will take is unknown at this point and will depend on what government comes out of the the next few years of political turmoil. Getting pensioners to "spend" their housing wealth on their own care directly is not going to fly, so it will need to be redistributed in other ways, these could include: Inflation, a massive housing crash, property/ land taxes, appropriation of BTLs, more radical socialist confiscation of assets. I wouldn't like to call it tbh, but we're moving in a direction, and it's away from what has come before, which has been: Just keep the oldies sweet and they'll vote us in again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bear Goggles said:

I think it's becoming increasingly likely that we'll get some kind of mass social housing programme at some point in the near future. What form this will take is unknown at this point and will depend on what government comes out of the the next few years of political turmoil. Getting pensioners to "spend" their housing wealth on their own care directly is not going to fly, so it will need to be redistributed in other ways, these could include: Inflation, a massive housing crash, property/ land taxes, appropriation of BTLs, more radical socialist confiscation of assets. I wouldn't like to call it tbh, but we're moving in a direction, and it's away from what has come before, which has been: Just keep the oldies sweet and they'll vote us in again.

Trailer parks would do it. Change the rules regarding planning and make them eligible for housing benefit. Overnight HMOs outside major cities are emptied, HB can be lowered across the board, rents fall, house prices collapse.

Buying a house becomes a matter more of choice than nessesity and landlords/EAs no longer hold the upper hand.

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:   52 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.