FSA advisers urge delay to mortgage reform and more 'flexible' lending

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for land. There is a difference between selling land off at BELOW market value and releasing cheaper land to build on.

There are many examples of cheaper land all around the country. Many new towns are being planned on this cheaper land, but never get off the ground due to planning restrictions and NIMBY's.

I thought the only land being released by the government was brownfield now?

I live on brownfield, but I am amazed how many times on here you here "who wants to live on ground with XXXX near it, underneath it"

AFIK most newbuilds are build on or near brownfield sites.

I am moor than happy for people to live on brownfield, but that is not quiet the idea I had on "cheaper land released" meant.
It it was yes, but more aspiring buyers must be prepared to live on it.

The other possible reason is that the human population is unsustainably high?

Really2

nembot wrote: »

Seems you're happy enough when the shoe is on the other foot, hardly surprising.

Any evidence to that statement.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

You mentioned earlier open markets.

So what are shared equity schemes doing? Are they not artificially helping to sustain property prices?

They are on the open market? AFIK if you have the funds anyone can buy one.

Why is it artificial if a single person can now afford to buy 50% of a house because they do not have the buying power of a couple?

Do you find that unfair that someone has purchased part of a house not a full one? Or should they just aspire to rent and never own?

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

They are on the open market? AFIK if you have the funds anyone can buy one.

Why is it artificial if a single person can now afford to buy 50% of a house because they do not have the buying power of a couple?

Do you find that unfair that someone has purchased part of a house not a full one? Or should they just aspire to rent and never own?

So do you think if shared equity schemes were removed house prices would start to drop?

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

So do you think if shared equity schemes were removed house prices would start to drop?

No because it is affordable housing, if it does not go to shared equity the house goes to HA or more than likely builders would build more expensive houses on the land.
Like they did before affordable housing levels were introduced to new developments.

Have you been on any 90's developments that have 100% detached houses on them?

More houses are now being built on the same amount of land because of affordable housing targets.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

No because it is affordable housing, if it does not go to shared equity the house goes to HA or more than likely builders would build more expensive houses on the land.
Like they did before affordable housing levels were introduced to new developments.

Have you been on any 90's developments that have 100% detached houses on them?

Affordable to who???

If people are needing a shared equity scheme then it basically means it is not affordable, i.e they can't afford to buy it without external intervention.

Which comes back to the point that the properties are too expensive in the first place.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

Affordable to who???

If people are needing a shared equity scheme then it basically means it is not affordable, i.e they can't afford to buy it without external intervention.

Which comes back to the point that the properties are too expensive in the first place.

HA's have been running shared ownership since before 1995 as far as I am aware so the concept is far from new as houses then would have been classed as under valued.

I'm not grasping your idea of affordable if they can afford to buy part and rent the other half?
It is not external intervention it is an option HA's have other than just renting and lowers their maintainance obligations
So to you people on lower incomes should not be able to do it, they should just rent?
could I ask who should be allowed to own?

Graham_Devon

shortchanged wrote: »

Which comes back to the point that the properties are too expensive in the first place.

It's not the price thats the issue. No no no.

It's the lending. If we raise the lending caps to 50 years, nothing can go wrong. There will also be nothing wrong with prices. Indeed, it's actually cheaper this way, as the repayment is £40 less per month than it would have been if house prices were 100k cheaper. So the house is actually cheaper.

The higher the prices go, the easier it is for people to buy, as loads of houses will be built on the land that houses are not allowed to be built on now.

Don't forget. You are stealing from your babies if you don't agree.

:sigh:

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

So to you people on lower incomes should not be able to do it, they should just rent?
could I ask who should be allowed to own?

This has been the problem ever since most of the social housing was sold off via right to buy and was never replaced, the resulting problem being a lack of affordable housing.

There will always need to be some form of affordable social housing for those on very low incomes.

At the end of the day when there is such a gulf in wealth in society there is always going to be some in society who will never be able to afford to buy a house which is where social housing comes in. However there is a serious lack of social housing.

And anyway I'm not referring to HA's using a shared equity scheme as that is different from private developments selling private houses and offering a shared equity scheme.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not the price thats the issue. No no no.

It's the lending.

Err did you not say that if we had relaxed lending criteria say 95% at a more normal (historical) rate there is a demand there?

How can it only be price then? I can quote what you said if you like. But you 100% said increasing affordability would not only sustain current prices it would cause them to boom.

Is it all price?

Prices would have to fall a lot to make a 25% deposit be the same amount as a 5% deposit in the boom.

A £160K house would have to fall to £32K to have the same deposit cost.