The Wilsons - 875 buy to let property empire

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

But the answer to undersupply of housing is to build more, end of.

See only takes the next post to prove my point entirely!

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It tells me we have vested interests making major decisions.

It tells me that, far from the solution being banded around as "more homes", it's not a solution that is actually going to be put into fruition on any large scale, therefore it's not actually a viable solution.

That tells me we remain with the problem.

Theres plenty that can be done to ease problems. I've listed them all before, and they do not include building more houses, rather regulating the existing stock. However, whenever this is bought up, it's back to "the only solution is to build more" and were back to square one. Those who trot out this line over and over again do not wish to see any form of any other solutions imposed.

That is a stupid and incorrect generalisation - I've personally been saying that some form of restriction is needed on new building to prevent use for other purposes than owner occupation, as has Hamish actually I think. But the issue is that tens of thousands fewer homes than needed are created each year. You can regulate all you want, all you end up doing is changing the allocation of the musical chairs.

If you build more homes, you solve the actual problem. You're so close to getting it, you're complaining because the houses near you weren't built. And then you fail at the last piece of analysis by claiming that by regulating existing stock better you can magic up tens of thousands of low cost homes. It's maddening.

And stop this rubbish about "vested interests". It's not about vested interests, that is a conspiracist invention of the HPC crew to explain why they're wrong about everything - the VIs step in and do something to change the game.

It's about fear of change, about not wanting cheap housing locally to spoil the view and introduce undesirables, and the expectation that the planning system can be used to delay or halt developments. Which it most certainly can now.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

That is a stupid and incorrect generalisation

Hardly. As I said, you proved my point directly under my post.

Lets look at cars. They wanted to see less gas guzzlers on the road. The imposed punative tax charges and punative parking and congestion zone charges on these cars.

These cars have reduced in numbers since these changes. The figures back this up.

A tax change, whereby you pay a lot more for a performance car, has the desired effect. People changed their habits. Sold their cars. It's essentially the same for housing. Change the tax rules, and investment will slowly pull back, allowing prices to reduce.

By your theory, the only way to reduce gas guzzlers on the road, would be to build more smaller engined cars to add to the existing stock, while doing nothing to persuade people to stop buying gas guzzlers.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

If you build more homes, you solve the actual problem. You're so close to getting it, you're complaining because the houses near you weren't built. And then you fail at the last piece of analysis by claiming that by regulating existing stock better you can magic up tens of thousands of low cost homes. It's maddening.

Ahhh, and now your having to change my post. I said there were other things you can do. Not that there was only one route you could chose and it was either build more home, or impose a tax change.

Think outside of the box. You can do both.

Turnbull2000

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It tells me we have vested interests making major decisions.

So you do finally get it. BTL as a major player is here to stay. Opposition to home building is here to stay. Chronically low house building levels are here to stay. State intervention to support the market is here to stay. Two full time incomes to buy are here to stay. Thus 'high' house prices are the new norm.

You can talk all you want about numerous measures to alleviate these issues. They're not gonna happen. The best you'll get is looser lending and shared-ownership.

Graham_Devon

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

So you do finally get it. BTL as a major player is here to stay. Opposition to home building is here to stay. Chronically low house building levels are here to stay. State intervention to support the market is here to stay. Two full time incomes to buy are here to stay. Thus 'high' house prices are the new norm.

I see you are not willing to discuss what I said either.

Never saw that one coming! Instead you opt to say "you finally got it" ignore everything else I said and simply say the same thing again.

Turnbull2000

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I see you are not willing to discuss what I said either.

Never saw that one coming! Instead you opt to say "you finally got it" ignore everything else I said and simply say the same thing again.

That's because you call it a "problem". Your 'problems' are a money spinner for many others, in particular those with influence over the policies you desire. You incorrectly assume they want to fix it.

DexterA

I'm all for building new homes if they're built in Aberdeen.

Graham_Devon

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

That's because you call it a "problem". Your 'problems' are a money spinner for many others, in particular those with influence over the policies so you desire. You incorrectly assume they want to fix it.

Thats classic. Seriously.

Theres no problems in Libya. Afterall, it's a money spinner for the arms trade.

ILW

The last thing I want is a load of houses being built on the woodlands opposite my place. maybe we should look at decreasing demand (population).