Wednesday, October 28, 2015

The next property boom : The Lea Valley of Haringey, Enfield and Broxbourne

Crossrail 2 factsheet: Services between Enfield Lock and Tottenham Hale

Well, here we go. The Lea Valley, starting from very humble beginnings, is about to undergo serious transformation. But there are still affordable starter homes for now. Whereas properties in Chingford and also west of the A10 are now significantly more expensive, that could well reverse as a result of this line increasing services from in some cases two trains per hour up to 15 trains per hour. The rest of the route is also being consulted on, with notable changes at Wood Green, which will boom, along with Balham rather than Tooting, and a couple of tweaks to the South West Trains routes. Seems like it is full steam ahead, but don't worry, most people do not act until the line is actually built, so you still have a good 10yrs of investing ahead.

Posted by libertas @ 02:35 AM (5697 views)
Please complete the required fields.



23 thoughts on “The next property boom : The Lea Valley of Haringey, Enfield and Broxbourne

  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    “Take now… some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: “Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city—in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?” He will tell you, “No!” “Will the wages of the common labor be any higher…?” He will tell you, “No the wages of common labor will not be any higher…” “What, then, will be higher?” “Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession.” And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.”

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I honestly wish Libby’s account would be suspended.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Sib’s nice extract. I can visualise a new Channel 4 show on the back of this called “Progress & Property”

    HP if Libby get’s suspended there will be even less activity on here ! I’m sure the real planning4acrash will reappear in due course.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Spot on Sib’s – leaches and thieves the lot – causing poverty and misery & how Libby revels in it

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • See, Crossrail and higher house prices do lead to a better quality of life

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262459/Police-shut-street-fight-outside-station-turns-riot.html

    Your children can go to school with children like this too… if only you would see the opportunity

    🙂

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • should the new poster after libby’s demise not be planning4endlessbubble

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Pete, he might morph into planning4LVT

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • If he was honest with himself and a true libertarian he would defiantly promote LVT

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sib @1 – or, JS Mill’s quote about landlords making money ‘in their sleep’.

    pg @8 – yes

    The ‘freedom’ of a libertas is, ironically, its opposite. Mill and other classical economists (CEs), including Marx, were champions of industrial capitalism (a necessary stage for Marx in the euthanising of rentiers). In those days this meant freeing capitalism from the feudal drag of landlords (warlords appropriating land and natural resources and charging rent) and banking families who made their fortunes by lending to governments to wage war, by petty usury and foreclosure and by massive swindles in the 19thC with regard to financing railways and canals. Rent and interest were products of war and contributed nothing to the growth of capitalism. The CEs feared that as economies grew so would rent and other financial overheads. The call for LVT – the handling over of rent to the state in place of taxes – (and for banking and land to become public utilities) was in fact (along with the 1848 revolutions) part of the fight of industrial capitalists to FREE themselves and the flow of profits, wages and real investment from this feudal millstone.

    Nowadays we’ve flipped back to the feudal paradigm as finance capital dominates industrial capital. There are crashes, foreclosures, transfer of property from debtors to creditors and the privatisation of pubic assets as financial claims surpass the capacity of productive power and earnings to keep pace. The only difference now is that banks have taken over from landlords as the dominant drag on the economy. Most bank credit is to buy real estate. Instead of LVT rental income is, in Michael Hudson’s words, ‘free to be pledged to banks’, which take over the landlord role of appropriating the rising value of land and natural resources. Debt deflation in the real economy is the result.

    Marx saw the possibility of financialisation but even he couldn’t foresee its descent into absurdity. He wrote “The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated commodities at their old nominal values” The Fed’s actions in 2008 were completely outside his ken.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sib @1 – or, JS Mill’s quote about landlords making money ‘in their sleep’.

    pg @8 – yes

    The ‘freedom’ of a libertas is, ironically, its opposite. Mill and other classical economists (CEs), including Marx, were champions of industrial capitalism (a necessary stage for Marx in the euthanising of rentiers). In those days this meant freeing capitalism from the feudal drag of landlords (warlords appropriating land and natural resources and charging rent) and banking families who made their fortunes by lending to governments to wage war, by petty usury and foreclosure and by massive swindles in the 19thC with regard to financing railways and canals. Rent and interest were products of war and contributed nothing to the growth of capitalism. The CEs feared that as economies grew so would rent and other financial overheads. The call for LVT – the handling over of rent to the state in place of taxes – (and for banking and land to become public utilities) was in fact (along with the 1848 revolutions) part of the fight of industrial capitalists to FREE themselves and the flow of profits, wages and real investment from this feudal millstone.

    Nowadays we’ve flipped back to the feudal paradigm as finance capital dominates industrial capital. There are crashes, foreclosures, transfer of property from debtors to creditors and the privatisation of pubic assets as financial claims surpass the capacity of productive power and earnings to keep pace. The only difference now is that banks have taken over from landlords as the dominant drag on the economy. Most bank credit is to buy real estate. Instead of LVT rental income is, in Michael Hudson’s words, ‘free to be pledged to banks’, which take over the landlord role of appropriating the rising value of land and natural resources. Debt deflation in the real economy is the result.

    Marx saw the possibility of financialisation but even he couldn’t foresee its descent into absurdity. He wrote “The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated commodities at their old nominal values” The Fed’s actions in 2008 were completely outside his ken.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @9
    “…including Marx, were champions of industrial capitalism”

    Very true, and something not widely known, and certainly not by half-educated “Libertarian” idealogues who engage in property ramping. 🙂

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Balham will boom ?
    It’s already in a boom / bubble.
    Balham has a tube to central london / City every 2 mins at peak times. The overland trains run to Victoria every 2-3 mins at peak, taking 13mins to Victoria.
    Crossrail will add what , exactly ? Capacity ? Won’t encourage anyone else to come live in bourgeois Balham….it’s already priced out most under 40s with 1-bed hovels costing £300K upwards…..
    Just wishing something doesn’t make it true.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Really? I thought you Marxists would be delighted by this grand example of redistribution of wealth?!

    Didn’t you know that Socialism, always and everywhere, breeds dependency and oligarchy? Did you not know that was its purpose?! Only this time it is a panicked response to the reality that London’s population is getting completely out of control, with nobody at the helm and the all important EU project to protect over and above the needs of the British people.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @11

    Ah, that old one. Now I’ve been outed as being a pseud, I’ll call everyone a “Marxist” and pretend I know what it means.

    🙂

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Idiot. The only redistribution of wealth here is funneling the fruits of public investment into private hands.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Sibly, by dear Idiot, is that not what occurred in the Soviet Union and still happens in Jolly old China, N.Korea, etc?

    As a fellow oligarch once said, give me socialism or fascism, we control them both, and happy to bank roll wars between them.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @14

    Uh?

    So you are a fan of public money being given to property-owners. I always had you as a fan of redistribution of wealth (of the right type, of course)

    😉

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • An Ode to Libby

    His name was Planning4acrash
    He said housing was in for a big smash
    Then his mum bunged him a lotta cash
    So he changed his name to Libertas

    Now he’s a fully paid-up housing bull
    He dreams of semis with swimming pools
    And says people who didn’t choose rich parents
    Are nothing more than poor fools

    The taxpayer funds his employment
    No fears of being made redundant
    Though he says governments destroy wealth
    Government jobs give his financial health

    He says he’s for private investment
    But he loves the public paying for railways
    Because it makes his house price rise quick
    And he’ll make a public-funded profit

    So he sits in his house in Enfield
    No big mortgage to make himself skint
    He’s a wealth-creating capitalist
    On a salary from the Guv’mint

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • libertas – can we get away from the simple idea that Marxism leads to oligarchy and Soviet gulags? It’s like blaming Adam Smith for Guantanamo. The part of Marx to which I referred @9 is the part which analysed banksters and landlords as inhibiting the growth of industrial capitalism (he saw them as unnecessary costs which slow the accumulation of industrial capital – Adam Smith saw that too).

    Another part of Marx analysed what happens when you neutralise banksters and landlords and industrial capitalism is allowed to develop. Then you get internal ‘contradictions’ where competition leads capitalists to maximise profit by exploiting workers, who cannot buy all they produce, so you get overproduction crises. At the political level the capitalists break the stranglehold of landlords and financiers over legislatures and taxation by promoting democratic reform, and this in turn enables workers to take over.

    It’s the first part of Marx (i.e. the part he shared with Adam Smith, the Physiocrats, John Stuart Mill, Ricardo etc.) which interests us here, since economies have reverted to the dominance of finance and land ownership. The consequent indebtedness of workers (rather than the above-mentioned contradiction) is what makes them unable to buy enough stuff to make it worthwhile for corporations (who anyway are bought and sold, downsized and asset-stripped by banksters) to invest in productive capacity. Nominally manufacturing corporations make much of their profit by means of their financial arms (or price-gouging by big pharma). This financialised economy lives by inflating asset prices with debt while neglecting the production of goods and real (rather than financial manipulation) services.

    This is the economy into which you are buying.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @17

    “libertas – can we get away from the simple idea that Marxism leads to oligarchy and Soviet gulags?”

    No.

    Because that misconception is what Libertas has based his whole world view upon, and to let go of it would be too painful for him to bear.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Icarus, as I have said ad-infinitum, renters buy into that market more than buyers, since renters seek to rent indefinitely, whilst I will pay off my mortgage in 15yrs at this rate. I am investing to escape it, and I do not actually have any choice.

    What you all seem to miss, is that housing is, has been and always will be, absent a full collapse of the financial system, leveraged to wages and rental, augmented by interest rates, credit availability, taxes and associated regulations. As such, it is an inflation mega trend, to borrow from Market Oracle, that fluctuates and periodically corrects when valuations exceed what the market can sustain. None of that is going to change by you buying or not buying a house, because as a rented, as said, you participate in much the same way you would as a buyer, albeit perpetuating continual buy to let mortgage expansion by funding and fuelling it, breeding dependency rather than independence.

    That it is possible to invest wisely in tandem with mega infrastructure projects is simply observation and reacting to situations as they occur, it should not engender and political diatribe, since said investments occur whether I buy in those locations or if others do. Infact, I see myself as part of the solution, by taking this house away from a buy to let investor. This is one home that a snotty, sweaty, ugly buy to let investor will not pawn off and never invest in, letting it rot to the ground.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • So, whereas you guys ponder the zits on your political bottoms, I see this as a simple pitch battle between owner occupiers and buy to let investors. Whilst you navel gaze and encourage folk to not buy houses, the advances of the buy to let army is destroying communities throughout the land.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Find me a quote where I said ‘rent, don’t buy’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>