Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
oatbake

Dan Hannan: Protect our green spaces, not our green belt

Recommended Posts

Dan Hannan pretty much spot on here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/12/protect-green-spaces-not-green-belt/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

"It has become commonplace to point out that high prices are bad news for young people, who will never be able to buy a home. True. But other negative consequences, though less visible, are arguably even more severe. We rarely stop to consider how excessive housing costs contribute to our low savings ratio, or to the unusually long hours we work. The British pay nearly half as much again in rent as the French, Germans, Belgians or Dutch. That’s a lot of overtime."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Eddie_George said:

Anything but stopping the flow of easy money.

And immigrants.

That's the Ultras' Brexit for you. Everything the same as before only more so. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenbelt should be abolished in its entirety, an obscene self-serving policy of preventing labour voting Londoners from moving to, and hence voting in, the nice white ideologically pure Home Counties. It is a major driver of pollution and a major driver of the loss of urban green-space, i.e. the green-space urban residents actually have daily access to. The financial burden is huge due to inflated costs of rent, home-buying and commuting and the human cost of millions of working people having to commute for thousands of additional hours per year at the expense of their home life is considerable. 

The only good thing about greenbelt is it allows for the ready identification of morons (anyone who claims that greenbelt has ever shrunk by any amount).

 

Share this post


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

an obscene self-serving policy of preventing labour voting Londoners from moving to, and hence voting in, the nice white ideologically pure Home Counties

I thought most of the commuting was into London from the greenbelt spaces and places of cheaper housing?

People aren't commuting out of London to the greenbelt-reserves of Tunbridge Wells/Sevenoaks/other satellite towns where the greenbelt predominates. Making housing cheaper in those areas would only increase the commuting from the cheaper-housing-ex-greenbelt-land into London, surely?

And Manchester and Leeds and the Labour prevalence there? Is greenbelt policy being used to prevent those from those Labour-mainstream areas from moving to the countryside too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is i am a Norfolk lad.

We dont have good jobs, companies, facilities or indeed transport links.

We have our beautiful countryside which is is a big employer via agriculture and tourism.  If you have f all else you can walk the dog and take in the air, sea and rivers.

Please dont build over it just so you can shoehorn more people onto the island.

We have so many new developments........yet nobody can afford them on local money.

 

Edited by Fromage Frais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is the 

5 hours ago, Eddie_George said:

Anything but stopping the flow of easy money.

such that all the other money bobbles (bubbles) about chasing the next overpriced asset ... thus diverting it from real economic growth so that folks all over the country (and notably, in Norfolk) never get good jobs, companies or indeed transport links.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Oki said:

Greenbelt should be abolished in its entirety, an obscene self-serving policy ...

Would make owners of greenbelt land epically wealthy in an instant, but they still wouldn't build and sell houses for less than £X if people can borrow and pay £X. Would first need to introduce policies that flip incentives and the perpetual option to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most commuting is from the far side of the greenbelt into London. 

Greenbelt was not a policy advocated by city authorities but rather the councils that surround those cities and the national government of the day (conservative). The exact text of the circular that created green belt reads exactly as follows,

Circular No. 42/55:

'These proposals if strictly adhered to, should prove most effective. For this the authorities in the Home Counties deserve much credit.'

my emphasis, but I think it leaves no doubt who wanted the greenbelt. Invented by Home County councils scared of immigration from Soviet London and adopted nationally by a conservative controlled Westminster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, guest_northshore said:

Would make owners of greenbelt land epically wealthy in an instant, but they still wouldn't build and sell houses for less than £X if people can borrow and pay £X. Would first need to introduce policies that flip incentives and the perpetual option to wait.

I remember you . You are the person who insists that increasing the supply of buildable land by a factor of ten thousand would have no effect on land prices aren't you?

Do you walk in to newsagents to buy a bottle of milk and upon being told its twenty quid per pint say, 'lucky I have that much then because there is no chance that anyone else selling that same product might undercut you in order to get my business'.

Don't you have some macaroni art to be working on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of comes back the Q: affecting the supply of houses (overpriced or otherwise) is only part of the question.

The problem is not the supply of houses, but the demand for overpriced houses - demand that is driven by the flow of easy money ... well, money that is easy until the interest-rate-pied-piper comes back from his sabbatical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oki said:

I remember you . You are the person who insists that increasing the supply of buildable land by a factor of ten thousand would have no effect on land prices aren't you?

Do you walk in to newsagents to buy a bottle of milk and upon being told its twenty quid per pint say, 'lucky I have that much then because there is no chance that anyone else selling that same product might undercut you in order to get my business'.

Don't you have some macaroni art to be working on?

Just finished with colourful potato art prints so you were in luck. You'd be correct if the land wasn't aready owned by someone, but good luck with that view wrt housing affordability.

Edited by guest_northshore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Oki said:

Every product on earth is owned by someone, just not the same person and they can't all have your business.

True but what incentive is there to compete on land price when it's limited and essential, but you either own or you don't? (permissioned or otherwise, because permissioned land can be traded without housing on it).

I'm all for more building, in the context of efficient land use tied with efficient incentives to prevent something more than just windfall gains and continued hoarding. e.g. social housing, LVT.

If you think the planning and permissions aspect is a significant price driver then there's been a lot about it in the news recently so perhaps we'll find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.