Number of empty homes in England rises while homelessness reaches record levels

[Captain Kirk]

On 13/03/2019 at 12:52, Wayward said:

Yes it can.  There is plenty of land.  The shortage is of land with planning for housing.  This is a political construct.  The tap can be turned on or off as our leaders choos

Yes, that's right. There are only a few things you can do with land such as farm it, build roads, factories, houses, etc. on it. There is no reason houses need to be so ridiculously expensive. The cronies in charge are totally fleecing the clueless plebs.

[macca13]

2 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

But food comes from the land.

I see an article that we will all be living 10 years less than those that went before us.. It’s said that higher populations need more aggressive food production.. so we are all eating more steroid, antibiotic pumped, chemically washed food..  full of preservatives and sugar.. 

higher populations = worse shorter life, worse standard of living, greater division.. 

[macca13]

2 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

Yes, that's right. There are only a few things you can do with land such as farm it, build roads, factories, houses, etc. on it. There is no reason houses need to be so ridiculously expensive. The cronies in charge are totally fleecing the clueless plebs.

Not enough land to feed ourselves.. let’s increase our population and concrete over more of it!.. ?

[Captain Kirk]

13 hours ago, macca13 said:

Not enough land to feed ourselves.. let’s increase our population and concrete over more of it!.. ?

Well maybe, but we also have an obesity problem. However, I'm not advocating increasing our population. I'd like to see it go down because it would freak out the BTL brigade and they'd start dumping their crapholes on the market.

[BorrowToLeech]

On 13/03/2019 at 12:52, Wayward said:

Yes it can.  There is plenty of land.  The shortage is of land with planning for housing.  This is a political construct.  The tap can be turned on or off as our leaders choose.

The market can’t do anything about that.

In any case it’s a matter of geometry, not planning. Land within 1 hour of my workplace is finite and, essentially, fixed.

This is why housing bubbles have occurred in Canada and Australia.

Also, U.K. planning law has not changed dramatically, so while removing it might help relieve the problem it certainly has not caused the problem.

On 13/03/2019 at 12:52, Wayward said:

I think there is some confusion here about empty housing and supply.  If houses are sat empty they are not supply.  It is restricted supply that creates competitive bidding and inflation fuelled by loose credit

The question is not whether empty houses are supply, that leads to a tautology.

The question is whether supply is limited because there are not enough houses. 

We know that house building has outpaced population, that there are empty houses, and that there is no shortage of houses available to rent.  We know that the number of multiple homeowners has ballooned.

So, no, the housing crisis was not caused by our failure to build enough houses.

Edited March 15, 2019 by BorrowToLeech

[BorrowToLeech]

17 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

But food comes from the land.

Food can be transported across the entire planet.

Houses are quite cheap in rural Africa, but it’s a bit difficult to commute to the office form there. 

[iamnumerate]

6 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

We know that house building has outpaced population, that there are empty houses, and that there is no shortage of houses available to rent.  We know that the number of multiple homeowners has ballooned.

So, no, the housing crisis was not caused by our failure to build enough houses.

According to

https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/

Quote

No recent government has seen enough homes built to keep up with demand.

There are various ways of measuring the ‘housing gap’ between how many we need and how many we’re building. One way is comparing projections for the number of new households with current house building.

England is projected to have 210,000 extra households per year between 2014 and 2039. A household is a person living alone or a group of people living together (such as a family), and two or more households can share one house. We don’t necessarily need one house per new household.

We can compare the projection to the main house building figure of 184,000 in 2016/17 or the 217,000 homes added to the stock that year.

So I am not sure we are building enough although it is not clear either way.

 

7 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

 Land within 1 hour of my workplace is finite and, essentially, fixed.
 

True although there are probably people living within 1 hour of your workplace who don't work (and maybe never have) and get their rent paid.  The Government could stop paying their rent unless they move somewhere there is less demand for housing and increase the amount of available housing nearby.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, BorrowToLeech said:

Food can be transported across the entire planet.

Houses are quite cheap in rural Africa, but it’s a bit difficult to commute to the office form there. 

Very true and sometimes can be greener to do so.

[BorrowToLeech]

7 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

According to

https://fullfact.org/economy/house-building-england/

So I am not sure we are building enough although it is not clear either way.

 

True although there are probably people living within 1 hour of your workplace who don't work (and maybe never have) and get their rent paid.  The Government could stop paying their rent unless they move somewhere there is less demand for housing and increase the amount of available housing nearby.

1. Full fact are dead wrong, largely because they are basing their argument on projections. Previous projections have proved to be wrong.  Furthermore, the problem has occurred across many western countries, and this explanation leaves that as a remarkable coincidence.

Overall, the statistics on how population has grown and what we did build are very clear.

2. Yes, government have increased demand.  That’s precisely in line with what I’m saying.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by BorrowToLeech

[iamnumerate]

Just now, BorrowToLeech said:

1. Full fact are dead wrong. The statistics are very clear. This is an argument from authority.

2. Yes, government have increased demand.  That’s precisely in line with what I’m saying.

 

What statistics have you found?  I am not a fan of full fact they were just the first I found I also found this

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/430

 

Quote

1. The UK has a housing crisis. Put simply there are too many people chasing too few homes. In 2004 the Barker Review estimated that 240,000 additional homes needed to be built in the UK every year to cope with demand. However, in the last ten years an average of just 165,000 have been built (find the latest statistics on house building here).

2. The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has now concluded that 300,000 new homes would be needed annually in the UK. The government has committed to building one million new homes across the UK by 2020, which the House of Lords Committee said ‘will not be enough’.

 

[Captain Kirk]

45 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

Food can be transported across the entire planet.

Houses are quite cheap in rural Africa, but it’s a bit difficult to commute to the office form there. 

Not if your office is in rural Africa.

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

Well maybe, but we also have an obesity problem. However, I'm not advocating increasing our population. I'd like to see it go down because it would freak out the BTL brigade and they'd start dumping their crapholes on the market.

Thanks for that - now I've got another good anti population growth argument under my belt!

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

True although there are probably people living within 1 hour of your workplace who don't work (and maybe never have) and get their rent paid.  The Government could stop paying their rent unless they move somewhere there is less demand for housing and increase the amount of available housing nearby.

Maybe, but the same will be true for jobs anywhere. Expect this issue to get worse when there's more pressure to centralise jobs and increase travelling to accommodate it (so give anyone saying we need more motorways and faster trains a good kicking).

[Captain Kirk]

23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Thanks for that - now I've got another good anti population growth argument under my belt!

You're welcome!

[steve99]

My council gives a council tax discount to owners of their second unoccupied home wheras some charge more.   This along with all housing policy needs to be a Labour party core issue if they ever get back in.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Councils ask for new powers to seize properties for England's homeless  

https://sports.yahoo.com/councils-ask-for-new-powers-to-seize-properties-for-englands-homeless-000101405.html

Quote

The Local Government Association (LGA), a body representing local councils, has called on the government to take action on the volumes of homeless people stuck in temporary accommodation during coronavirus lockdowns.

It said that around 450 primary schools’ worth of children are stuck in temporary accommodation amid a chronic shortage of affordable housing.

The latest figures for England show there are 127,240 children living in temporary accommodation, including 1,440 households with children in bed and breakfasts.

Measures to combat this could include new powers for councils to acquire empty homes, including making it easier to use Compulsory Purchase Order powers to buy properties and help move households on from temporary accommodation, the LGA said...

 

[Wayward]

Seems un-English to confiscate or CPO someone's property without very good reason but the disastrous policy of distorting the housing market the way they have leads us to this...and I expect worse to come.

[Gribble]

On 12/03/2019 at 11:18, dougless said:

Quite but the UK has always had a large number of empty properties and one estimate a few years ago was around 500,000+.  That's before we look at the scandal of second (or more) homes.  Our society is so caring that we can be fine with homeless people living on the street and yet its still OK for people to own more than one house.

If you have beef about that you should also be just as vociferous with people having more than 2 kids as that adds to  the "crisis" by ramping demand

[NobodyInParticular]

On 3/12/2019 at 11:18 AM, dougless said:

Quite but the UK has always had a large number of empty properties and one estimate a few years ago was around 500,000+.  That's before we look at the scandal of second (or more) homes.  Our society is so caring that we can be fine with homeless people living on the street and yet its still OK for people to own more than one house.

There's a good proportion of those that are either in areas with no work, or are not fit for human habitation, or both.

If not fit for human habitation then you can't put the homeless there. There's a shockingly high number of non-empty homes that also aren't fit. 

In terms of areas with no jobs, there might be issues with 'warehousing' the homeless in places with no jobs as then it makes it harder for them to progress in life, unless it's strictly temporary. 

[NobodyInParticular]

On 3/15/2019 at 10:18 AM, iamnumerate said:

What statistics have you found?  I am not a fan of full fact they were just the first I found I also found this

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/430

 

 

Migration watch has quite the agenda, so I tend to ignore it. 

[NobodyInParticular]

On 3/15/2019 at 10:09 AM, iamnumerate said:

True although there are probably people living within 1 hour of your workplace who don't work (and maybe never have) and get their rent paid. 

At best, it's a proportion of the rent, not all of it. But then I've already told you this. 

On 3/15/2019 at 10:09 AM, iamnumerate said:

 

 

[iamnumerate]

Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

At best, it's a proportion of the rent, not all of it. But then I've already told you this. 

 

If rent is x and you get more than x than it is getting paid for you.

[NobodyInParticular]

9 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

If rent is x and you get more than x than it is getting paid for you.

Housing benefit pays 80% of rent. Total benefits may be more than rent but humans sometimes need food. Of course, you may not understand that. Logic isn't your strong suit. 

[APerson]

On 12/03/2019 at 11:47, Riedquat said:

Although it's tempting to link the two they are (at least to a fair degree) two separate issues. The homeless are those people who have slipped through the cracks in society, however expensive houses are or how many empty ones. A lack of housing (or at least a lack of housing they can access) isn't really the cause. The people who are getting p1ssed on by the empty housing and second homes are those who are still part of the system, probably still working, and renting expensive poky and probably over-crowded accommodation. Freeing up unused housing will help them but won't make much difference to the homeless - that's a different problem with a different cause and hence needs a different solution, although you could make an argument that both stem from the nature of our current society.

Yep this is the correct take. The people screwed over by the system but who still function in society are crammed into HMOs, or having to live with their parents into adulthood and unable to have proper families due to the situation. The people who are on the streets have usually had bad childhoods which has lead to drug, alcohol and mental health problems. 

Those who can function and have fallen on hard times can usually find a friends sofa to sleep on.

[squeezed]

EDMO has been around for a long time, it's just not being used. In my town there are houses that's been standing empty forever, on main roads, no one in the cuncil cares.