Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

But landowners said they would be concerned if the new laws led to a distortion in the land market and Mugabe-style land grabs.

Translation: Landowners would be concerned if the new laws led to a dismantling of the distortions in the land market from which they have benefited for so long and at such a cost to the quality of life in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many square acres do the roads take up. Look at any Ordnance Survey map, and there is your answer, very little. Some landowners measure their estates in square miles. Read the book, probably obtainable in your local Library. In the last hundred years they sold land off where a lot of housing estates and New Towns stand today, making a fortune on the sales, and just a small dent in their estates.  <_<

The rich get richer and the Monarchy retain their feudal grip

Prince Charles built 1,000 houses, selling at £350,000 each on farmland of

"Outstanding Natural Beauty" in Dorchester (Poundbury). His family have been

playing this game in Dorchester since 1875! His profit on 1,000 houses is

over £100 million. In 2004 the Dorchester Planning Department drew up their

latest assessment for housing needs. Seventy hectares of farmland of

outstanding natural beauty over the hedge from the building plot granted

permission in 1990 has now been designated for housing, netting Charles a

further £300million overnight.

The royal estates are supposed to be owned by the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yep , "new money" .

Twas ever thus... read "The Leopard" by Giuseppe di Lampedusa, it describes the aftermath of Garibali's (the soldier not the biscuit) revolution in Italy in the 1860's. A lovely book full of rich language. One to mull over, don't expect a "Bravo 2 Zero" style of page turning read...

Besides, many of the traditional hereditary landowners are relatively land rich and money poor. They are a kind of nouvelle pauvre. Perhaps persuading them to get rid of some of it would do them some good and encourage a bit more enterprise. Again, lots of echoes with the book "The Leopard" where the prince lives by selling off parcels of land rather than getting with the spirit of the times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Twas ever thus... read "The Leopard" by Giuseppe di Lampedusa, it describes the aftermath of Garibali's (the soldier not the biscuit) revolution in Italy in the 1860's. A lovely book full of rich language. One to mull over, don't expect a "Bravo 2 Zero" style of page turning read...

Besides, many of the traditional hereditary landowners are relatively land rich and money poor. They are a kind of nouvelle pauvre. Perhaps persuading them to get rid of some of it would do them some good and encourage a bit more enterprise. Again, lots of echoes with the book "The Leopard" where the prince lives by selling off parcels of land rather than getting with the spirit of the times.

Being poor is relative. Many of these poor landowners you refer to, can sell a sliver of land for building every now and then and make millions, as Prince Charles, and the Spencers have done.

There are few poor large landowners around, if any, and none that I know. Despite media coverage of an inpoverished aristocracy, they have managed to hold on to their lucratuive acres well well, and in many cases expand.

Persuading them to get rid of land? Well Land Value Tax would do that. Land re-distribution certainly will. In Irleand no land was seized, it was all bought. The land landowers did not loose out.

The people of the UK were raped during the enclosures and the clearing of the highlands.

"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with

title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so." - George Orwell

Compensating large land owers is akin to compensating slave traders when slavery was abolished - the British government actually did this.

NB: Denmark have a limited implementation of Land Value Tax (LVT) and Ireland re-distributed land - actually started by the UK government.. Most major western nations have some form of capping on land ownership and ecent planning laws that do not herd the people into tiny urban pockets. The UK has a department to deal with monopolies, yet land which is regarded as "property" is exempt.

The UK is still Medieval and needs to get into the 21st century ASAP. The quality of life in countries were land is not in the hands of a few is certainly higher. The UK has been had a permanent housing crisis for the past 150 years. All successive governments have done is fire fight the problem using publiuc money. The free market would provide most, if not all, of the UKs housing needs, if land was made available and a Draconian planning system abolished. The UK certainly has the slummiest looking houses of all the major western nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For free handouts apply for a Visa to Russia

All others who wish to participate in the free world. Get a job and buy your own land.

I thought the reds under the bed were no longer Russians.

Should we buy half of Yorkshire? Monopolies in land is one of the points here. If we bought an acre of land in the countryside as you suggest. what could we do with it? You can't build a nice house on it.

You fail to see the effect of:

1. The absence of any mechanism restricting monopolies in land.

2. A planning system geared to artificially ramp up land prices.

Indeed the free world should apply to land and its usage. People should have the freedom to build their own homes in the countryside, with their own money, not rely on taxpayers providing them with low grade housing, they don't want.

The free market should fully apply to land and planning, currently it does not. It is rigged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yep , "new money" .

Hey people!

The REAL culprits are the MONEYLENDERS: They have TOTALLY Scr***d us!! How? Simple: Yuu need to borrow money to buy a house; you should actually only have to borrow a)what it cost to build (around £25-45k for a 2/4 bed place, believe it or not); We are actually paying WAY over for this - profit margins are enormous - but the really big cost nowadays is, B) cost of land to build it on -- THIS has been TOTALLY manipulated by the Moneylenders, their PR agents, and all their friends - Property Speculators, Estate Agents etc. etc. ; how? They have bought up all the building land, and effectively ransomed and blackmailed us for a patch of it.

You see, what happens is - we/you go to the Moneylenders - and - all submissive and 'Yes sir, please sir'........ and THEY say - OK - That 2 bed, [basic piece-of- sh*t house] is "worth" £260K -- Why? Becasue I say so!! And so, yes, I'll lend you £255k, you put down £5k -- and hey presto!! You have a house.... or rather..... we have a house for you....... and, .....enjoy spending the rest of your life busting a gut to pay us many times over for this house matey, ha ha ha !!!!!!

And -- you have 2 choices: 1) Accept - and spend the rest of yr life in servitude - paying an absolute FORTUNE for a pile of Cr*p -- or, B) Do not accept -- and er..... well....... what now?

THey've got you by the balls -- and the only way to fight back is for us all to say, no, we will not accept your valuation - we will pay a fair price -- but not that price. Trouble is..... we ALL need to face them down, and just say -- that is what we'll pay, no more. FTB's should ALL get together - using todays emails/www'cellphones etc. - and make an electronic mass movement - call it STOP THE FTB RIP OFF.com -- and go from there. Start off in all the Universities, Colleges, even Schools -- Mail/leaflets/emails/ etc. etc. -- ALL directing EVERYONE to a central website -- HPC!? - ...It just needs, in theory..... & in practice!!, SOLIDARITY. It would be amazing to watch this happen -- along the lines of the Ukrainians at the moment: It IS possible!! Some young guys (or girls) out there - you could do this -- EASILY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post John,

never quite understood the reasons for not being able to build on land (unless a dwelling exists). Now I do!

PS. Wouldn't have fancied typing that post up myself! Tell me you pasted it from somewhere?

I pasted it, however I wrote it for a USA web site dedicated to economic justice - I suppose they should go to Russia as well :). It has been amended since. All facts checked before someone starts doubting them.

I was amazed how much the public have been hoodwinked over the years when I started to look into the matter. I could have made it twice the size, however people will loose interest if it is too long.

The more you know about the subject the more you realise that it is THE major problem of the UK. Sort it out and we all benefit, all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice one eric,

would like to start this email chain letter myself but for fear of getting lynched by friends, family and collegues!

Fly posting off your local multi storey carpark?

No Muggy Bear: Don't know if your'e a FTB or not -- but, HAVE COURAGE!!!!! And if so worried -- just send it to all your FTB wannabe mates!!!!

A "Fair" price? Simple: 3.5 x your salary. That is it; that is how it used to be -- and that is what all FTB's should offer; NO MORE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey people!

The REAL culprits are the MONEYLENDERS:  They have TOTALLY Scr***d us!!  How?  Simple: Yuu need to borrow money to buy a house; you should actually only have to borrow a)what it cost to build (around £25-45k for a 2/4 bed place, believe it or not); 

The financial institutions are certainly culpable, however the real culprits are large landowners who have influenced laws to suit themselves over the years - land laws and planning laws. The House of Lords was really the House of Landlords. The influence of the titled landowners is still powerful.

Successive governments have let the people down. The Liberal said they would reform land after WW1, Labour said they would do it after WW2. Both let the people down. If land is reformed and the Draconian planning system rolled back, the private sector - market forces - will take care of housing. Only in extreme cases would public money be need to house people. Far too much public money is used in housing, directy and indirectly - money that can be better used for other needs.

1. The idea of land being property should cease. All land is actually owned by the Crown, the state.

2. Landowners should be landholders,

3. Property should be the bricks on the land, not the land

4. Leasehold should be abolished - a presure group is already formed to achieve this.

5. The countryside should be regarded as anywhere else regarding planning. Only in SSSIs, National Parks, etc, should restrictions apply. People should be living amogst nature not driving out to see it.

6. Land redistribution or Land Value Tax should be broadly implemented.

Any responsible government would do the above. Natural and social justice dictates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this right John

What you are suggesting is that we should all be able to roll up to a piece of land and build a house on it.

I think that has been done in the past, it was called the middle ages, and resulted in thousands building houses only to have someone bigger come along kill them and move in.

Housing is a scarce resource and is controlled thats for sure. But would we really want it any other way. Look back six years ago and houses were for sale in Manchester two for the price of one. Streets for sale for less than 30 grand.

How was that situation good?. Did thousands of FTB's drop in to clean up. The answer is no, undoubtebly people buy houses as an investment and when it no longer becomes an investment they dont like it.

It will never change, a house is one of the most expensive things you will ever buy in your life, and you will spend the rest of your life paying for it.

Its society, and it makes the world go round. Take it away and there is little else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that has been done in the past, it was called the middle ages, and resulted in thousands building houses only to have someone bigger come along kill them and move in.

Laurejon, not 2 minutes ago you were praising this situation in the "dark ages" as you called it, and now you are denigrating it. Which is it? You can't have it both ways boyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Being poor is relative.  Many of these poor landowners you refer to, can sell a sliver of land for building every now and then and make millions, as Prince Charles, and the Spencers have done. 

There are few poor large landowners around, if any, and none that I know.  Despite media coverage of an impoverished aristocracy, they have managed to hold on to their lucratuive acres well well, and in many cases expand.

Persuading them to get rid of land?  Well Land Value Tax would do that.  Land re-distribution certainly will.  In Irleand no land was seized, it was all bought.  The land landowers did not loose out.  

The people of the UK were raped during the enclosures and the clearing of the highlands.

"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with

title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so." - George Orwell

Compensating large land owers is akin to compensating slave traders when slavery was abolished - the British government actually did this.

NB: Denmark have a limited implementation of Land Value Tax (LVT) and Ireland re-distributed land - actually started by the UK government..   Most major western nations have some form of capping on land ownership and ecent planning laws that do not herd the people into tiny urban pockets.  The UK has a department to deal with monopolies, yet land which is regarded as "property" is exempt.

The UK is still Medieval and needs to get into the 21st century ASAP.  The quality of life in countries were land is not in the hands of a few is certainly higher.  The UK has been had a permanent housing crisis for the past 150 years.  All successive governments have done is fire fight the problem using publiuc money.  The free market would provide most, if not all, of the UKs housing needs, if land was made available and a Draconian planning system abolished.  The UK certainly has the slummiest looking houses of all the major western nations.

I think this is all a bit far fetched. Yes - Landlords had it all for hundreds of years -- but today the House of Lords is full of Tony's cronies....... and, you could say that, because of the quirk of history - and because all these Landlords had chunks of land over many centuries, today, bar the urban chunks, and built up bits all over the place, BECAUSE Lord Plonker had that chunk of land and guarded it jealously, it has NOT been utterly ruined by "progress"!! i.e. by industry, crap housing, for roads etc./ or whatever.

Look at all those National Trust & age places plus many many others open to the public -- they would not be there if there had been a free for all and anyone had been allowed to run free & do as they liked!!

I mean -- It's all turned into a cloud with a silver lining! We still have beautiful chunks of countryside etc etc. left!! Yes-- if Landlords are making huge profits here and there by gettting planning permission to build -- that should be HEAVILY HEAVILY taxed........ but - history has, it turns out, done us a big of a favour. Look at all the CRAP building let loose on huge chunks of land and urban areas all over the UK duriing the 60's and 70's!!! That was an era when people were let loose/let rip...... and when there's a kind of free-for-all --- the result is often gross!! Now we must preserve the good bits, and ake the bad bits better. I do beleive, however, that their is a lot of myth in the idea that there is NO room left for houses. There is plenty of room -- and the trouble is - where they do build houses today - they do it SO badly - and the houses are so grim - no gardens, squeezed in like chicken hatches etc etc. That is a huge area of concern -- and, as per usual, the Property Moghuls are Shi*t**ng on us -- as ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are suggesting is that we should all be able to roll up to a piece of land and build a house on it.

Yes, why not? Most of the UK is not of outstaningly beauty, or National Park, etc. About 40% of farmland (about 27% of the UK's land) is uneconomic, so lots of land to be used to the greater nenefit of the 60,000,000.

I think that has been done in the past, it was called the middle ages, and resulted in thousands building houses only to have someone bigger come along kill them and move in.

I think things have moved on a little since then. <_<

Housing is a scarce resource and is controlled thats for sure. But would we really want it any other way.

You bet your boots most people would want it another way. Imagine having a mortage half what we currently pay and a larger house to boot.

Look back six years ago and houses were for sale in Manchester two for the price of one. Streets for sale for less than 30 grand.

That old chestnet used to demostrate that the UK has an abundance of homes. Yes, the houses were in districts full of drugs, very small and virtually slums. 30K for them was 30K too much.

It will never change, a house is one of the most expensive things you will ever buy in your life, and you will spend the rest of your life paying for it.

A house should not be so expensive. If land, of which the country has an abundance of, was available for building, prices would half, reducing the end housing prices. Who woudn't want a larger house at half the cost? It can be done. There is no reason it can't be done. What prevents it happening is political will and ignornace on the part of the population.

People are obsessed with house prices because their life savings are wrapped up in the house. In other countries houses are not so expensive and much larger and are not regarded as a major investment - they go to the stock exchamge to invest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is all a bit far fetched. Yes - Landlords had it all for hundreds of years -- but today the House of Lords is full of Tony's cronies....... 

The Lords is still predominantly Tory biased. They want the status quo when it comes to land.

and, you could say that, because of the quirk of history - and because all these Landlords had chunks of land over many centuries, today, bar the urban chunks, and built up bits all over the place, BECAUSE Lord Plonker had that chunk of land and guarded it jealously, it has NOT been utterly ruined by "progress"!!  i.e. by industry, crap housing, for roads etc./ or whatever.

Cheap crap housing only came about because of restricted building land. The land accounted for the majority of the house price that the structure was built cheaply and houses condensed in estates to have an affirdable end house price. Those horrid estates were a direct result of building land restrictions.

Look at all those National Trust & age places plus many many others open to the public -- they would not be there if there had been a free for all and anyone had been allowed to run free & do as they liked!! 

Personally I couldn't care a hoot about some mansion hiden in the country. The welfare of the 60 million comes first. many of the mansions were built on illgotton gains by peopel who stole land during the enclosures and clearances.

"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so." - George Orwell

I mean -- It's all turned into a cloud with a silver lining! We still have beautiful chunks of countryside etc etc. left!!

So, we all live on top of each other paying extoriate prices for a very small roof over our heads, so some rich landowners can still have their mansions? Are you serious?

Look at all the CRAP building let loose on huge chunks of land and urban areas all over the UK duriing the 60's and 70's!!! That was an era when people were let loose/let rip.

As I have said that sort of building was a direct result of restricted land for building. One one was let loose/let rip, the T&C planning act has prevented people building where they want to. Some large very rich construction companies did what they liked that was for sure.

..... and when there's a kind of free-for-all --- the result is often gross!! 

Why should it be? Planning can insist on building to the local vernacular. That is not a problem. Look at France. We can learn a lot from them. Each region allows market forces to determine house building levels. No planners decide that X amount of homes should be built in a town, the market decides. It works. It is better than what we have by a mile. I don't see hideous Wimpey estates in France. The French has a system of restricted land ownership.

Now we must preserve the good bits, and ake the bad bits better.  I do beleive, however, that their is a lot of myth in the idea that there is NO room left for houses.  There is plenty of room -- and the trouble is - where they do build houses today - they do it SO badly - and the houses are so grim - no gardens, squeezed in like chicken hatches etc etc.  That is a huge area of concern -- and, as per usual, the Property Moghuls are Shi*t**ng on us -- as ever.

As I have previously stated, those sorts of hideous high impact dense estates were a direct result of land restrictions. If land was freely available, and homes not built by about 20 companies, there would be choice. and people would go for quality. In the UK most people have Hobson's choice for houses. They have to buy the dross the moguls serve up.

You can build your own, if you can get land of course. The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western world due to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and favouring the large developers. In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%. In Scandinavia, Germany and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, however this still amounts to millions of houses per year.

An Australian lady I was talking to was amazed that we didn't even have a choice of front door colour on new houses. In Australia most homes are selfbuilt. People buy a plot and have their style of house built on it. In Australia homes are much larger, better quality and cheaper because they allow people to build on land.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can build your own, if you can get land of course.  The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western world due to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and favouring the large developers.  In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%.  In Scandinavia, Germany and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, however this still amounts to millions of houses per year.

BTW, only 10% of UK homes are selfbuilt. A significant proportion of that is houses being demolished to build a new home, not adding to the existing housing stock.

The big developers build over 80% of all homes, a situation not seen in any other major western nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Australian lady I was talking to was amazed that we didn't even have a choice of front door colour on new houses. In Australia most homes are selfbuilt. People buy a plot and have their style of house built on it. In Australia homes are much larger, better quality and cheaper because they allow people to build on land.

Given that you could put the whole of Europe including the UK into Western Australia alone gives you an idea as to how easy it is for them.

However got to Sydney and the planning laws are far more restrictive than ours in the UK.

When I started in the property business in 1975 as an apprentice Land represented 25% of costs. Today the figure is more likely to be in the region of 70%.

Like anything that is a scarce resource its going to cost you.

It is pure fantasy to think that we could just build and build without any planning. If I could build anywhere I would be building on the outskirts of London as would everybody else turning it into a large urban sprawl going out a hundred and fifty miles.

If we are really serious about housing then the first thing to do would be to improve the infrastructure. And that means road building, most large scale planning applications fail for the single reason that the local infrastructure is just not there to accept the new inhabitants.

With new roads we need schools and health Centres, and then shops. Many people just dont want this, they cry from the rooftops they want housing then complain the countryside is being ruined.

I just cant see there ever being enough houses, we are today in gridlock not just in cities but now in small towns on the coast that only five years ago where empty.

Get on the roads today at 05:00 in the morning and already there will be traffic jams it just goes to show you what people have to do today to earn a crust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An Australian lady I was talking to was amazed that we didn't even have a choice of front door colour on new houses. In Australia most homes are selfbuilt. People buy a plot and have their style of house built on it. In Australia homes are much larger, better quality and cheaper because they allow people to build on land.
Given that you could put the whole of Europe including the UK into Western Australia alone gives you an idea as to how easy it is for them.

Easy for what?

When I started in the property business in 1975 as an apprentice Land represented 25% of costs. Today the figure is more likely to be in the region of 70%.

Like anything that is a scarce resource its going to cost you.

Land is not scarse. The UK has a surplus of land.

It is pure fantasy to think that we could just build and build without any planning.

No one is advocating that.

If I could build anywhere I would be building on the outskirts of London as would everybody else turning it into a large urban sprawl going out a hundred and fifty miles.

Cities have a natural size. About 1 hours travel from one end to the other and they tail off. No so-called "sprawl". At an urban footprint of 6.6% of the land mass we haven't sprawlled anywhere. We actually have greenbelt sprawl.

Read the post of mine on How Land Affects the Average person, on this this thread.

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.

  • 442 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.