Eight Radical Solutions To The Housing Crisis

Pimperne1

From the BBC no less:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15400477

One is Guarantee Mortgage Payments (like the sound of this):

"Ways need to be found to encourage mortgage lenders to lend on terms that people can afford, he argues. The best way of doing this is for the government, house builders and mortgage lenders to club together to fund an insurance scheme that would underwrite mortgages where the lender defaults. Talks are in progress but these are complex negotiations, he admits.

But mortgage lenders are risk-averse and have imposed stricter lending criteria for obvious reasons. The first global financial crisis in 2007 was precipitated by the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market in the US, where banks give high-risk loans to people with poor credit histories.

"Forget the nonsense about the 'mortgage drought'," says Alex Morton from the Policy Exchange. The real problem is not so much lack of finance for mortgages but the impact of high land costs, he argues".

abaxas

Why do we need radical solutions to a simple problem?

Pimperne1

abaxas wrote: »

Why do we need radical solutions to a simple problem?

What's the simple solution?

abaxas

Pimperne1 wrote: »

What's the simple solution?

You build more houses and the infrastructure to support it.

paddyrg

abaxas wrote: »

You build more houses and the infrastructure to support it.

Spounds so simple, but then you have to choose which bits of green belt in the overcrowded SouthEast you are going to tarmac over. 'Crisis' is such a dramatic term, there isn't a crisis, there are plenty of cheap properties, but they're all north of Birmingham. Maybe an alternative simple solution is to move more jobs up north where people on MSE seem to be able to buy houses for five figures as opposed to the mid six-figure sums down south.

Simple is never totally simple ;-)

Mallotum_X

Or shoot people... That would reduce demand..

Centralised planning, without local authority/local politics getting in the way woul ease things. But what is built needs to be of better quality. To build better for less money needs costs to come down. Land is the biggest cost and building land is silly priced, other regs etc often complicate things by making houses meet certain energy efficiencies. Cheaper but more solid builds on cheaper land would help. But no one is going o want to be near the area that gets the big new estates, catch 22.

The high rate of HPI has caused all sorts of problems, and has ended up creating a situation thats dificult to unwind.

CLAPTON

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Or shoot people... That would reduce demand..

Centralised planning, without local authority/local politics getting in the way woul ease things. But what is built needs to be of better quality. To build better for less money needs costs to come down. Land is the biggest cost and building land is silly priced, other regs etc often complicate things by making houses meet certain energy efficiencies. Cheaper but more solid builds on cheaper land would help. But no one is going o want to be near the area that gets the big new estates, catch 22.

The high rate of HPI has caused all sorts of problems, and has ended up creating a situation thats dificult to unwind.

All planning guidelines and policies are already issued by central government
Any planning application refused by the local government can be appealed to central government inspectors and the the secratary of state can make the final decision... how much more centralised do you want it to be

energy efficiency rules, provision of affordable (social ) housing targets etc are all decided by central government

inm my view central government is the problem and not the solution

Mallotum_X

Whilst in not really in favour of setting things from the centre, its is the only logical way to decide on planning. Local decisions always end up with a nimby campaign or developers going to courts/central govt to overturn.

If the plans for new houses were decided differently, with a scrapping of local issues and considerations then that would help speed up the solution, reduce the cost of land and get houses built.

Whether the end result is considered "good" is another issue. But if the answer is more housing (at more affordable prices) then killing the value of building land has to be part of it, as well as unpopular decisions being made.

As you highlight above central can slow things down, but so can local, both systems and the current system do not work - if the ambition is more lower cost housing. Perhaps people dont really like more housing (unless its for them).

CLAPTON

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Whilst in not really in favour of setting things from the centre, its is the only logical way to decide on planning. Local decisions always end up with a nimby campaign or developers going to courts/central govt to overturn.

If the plans for new houses were decided differently, with a scrapping of local issues and considerations then that would help speed up the solution, reduce the cost of land and get houses built.

Whether the end result is considered "good" is another issue. But if the answer is more housing (at more affordable prices) then killing the value of building land has to be part of it, as well as unpopular decisions being made.

As you highlight above central can slow things down, but so can local, both systems and the current system do not work - if the ambition is more lower cost housing. Perhaps people dont really like more housing (unless its for them).

my point is that we already effectively have central planning and it hasn't been working

abaxas

paddyrg wrote: »

Spounds so simple, but then you have to choose which bits of green belt in the overcrowded SouthEast you are going to tarmac over. 'Crisis' is such a dramatic term, there isn't a crisis, there are plenty of cheap properties, but they're all north of Birmingham. Maybe an alternative simple solution is to move more jobs up north where people on MSE seem to be able to buy houses for five figures as opposed to the mid six-figure sums down south.

Simple is never totally simple ;-)

That's the easy bit.

You build first on the places with the best local infrastructure or you bribe those with improvements to build.

Does that Sutton Le Hole bypass need building, the residents have been asking for years. With that new 2,000 housing development, the bypass is assured.

kabayiri

Move long term unemployed people out of precious real estate in London to other areas. Re-let the property to low/middle income workers in the capital. This will free up pressures elsewhere.

If London is the most economic part of the country working right now, we need to maximise the potential.