What is wrong with wanting cheaper homes

Sibley

What is wrong with wanting cheaper homes
Those wanting them cannot be to blamed for those who over borrowed and are now panic stricken that a crash is on it's way

First paragraph.

Most of us did not overborrow that's the point.

Most of us are not panic stricken either. I could afford house prices to crash 50%. I just don't want it to happen.

I would prefer to spend that 50% on myself. I don't want to give 1% to you. Sorry and all that but that's how it is.

Save up and buy a place same as I did. Once you own it you won't want the value going down.

moneyinmypocket

And so we have it honlessskilledworker and his posin tounge have been told

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It would discourage land banking of land with planning permission, as opposed to all land banking.

However given that it can take up to a decade to get planning permission for large scale housing projects, it would also inevitably reduce the ability of the market to build more houses when conditions return to enable such building.

in general housebuilders do not hold land banks that lack outline planning permission to build

builders usually buy or come to some arrangement with the owners of land with outline planning permission (often farmers or speculative land owners)

the long lead times to build large developments tend to be because of the long drawn planning process that argues abut the size or number of the development rather than the principle

one of the advantages I see for a land value tax is that one the land has outline planning permission will be taxed higher and so will encourage the selling to either develop or sell and indeed reduce the price if necessary.

homelessskilledworker

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are large areas of London with derelect buildings (often owned by local authorities)
in the outer areas just look on google earth and see for yourself

in any event the SE isn't restricted to inside the M25

and of course there area many other areas with a housing shortage

If you want a good example to what is possible you only have to look at the Olympic site and surrounding area, look at the area going from Bow down to the Dome and it has been transformed from what was a complete dump.
You start moving up the Thames estuary and there are many great possibilities there.

You only have to go ack 30 years and the now thriving area around Tower bridge was a complete s**t hole, now it is a place where people would be up in arms if we pulled it all down.

This has happened to many places along the Thames, not one of these numerous new bulids are an eyesore, and why should they be with some creative thinking.

If there are good places to build well in the South East there must be hundreds if not thousands of areas in the whole of the UK which are just waiting for an uplift and some creative minds.

I am sick of these nimby cynics who don't except the UK is growing. and it really does not have to be a negative thing.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are large areas of London with derelect buildings (often owned by local authorities)
in the outer areas just look on google earth and see for yourself

in any event the SE isn't restricted to inside the M25

and of course there area many other areas with a housing shortage

If the land is derelict it should be built on and if it isn’t I wouldn’t think it is a planning issue.

Just because you can see open land on Google it doesn’t mean that it is suitable for building.

I’m sure there is scope for building more property in the SouthEast but consideration has to be given to the environment.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Now apply that same quote.....

"It is just as reasonable to desire cheap housing, as it is for cheap food or fuel."

..... to other asset classes, like shares, precious metals, classic cars, fine wines, etc, and see how ridiculous it sounds.

Doesn't sound ridiculous to me.

Shares, precious metals, fine wines etc., all things that many people can enjoy a reasonable lifestyle without having. A house is something that most people/families do require, just like food and fuel. It's a fairly basic "asset" (if you want to call it that) that most of us want to own, or live in. It's the mentality of treating property as an asset that leads to things like credit crunches.

moneyinmypocket

Honelesskilledworker - games up pal we all know your motives - this isn't about people as a whole having a better life it's about you picking up a steal off other peoples hard work - a wolf in Sheeps clothing

FTBFun

brit1234 wrote: »

No middle class 20-35 year olds with reasonable jobs who just want the chance to buy what their parents bought when they were that age. They are priced out of the market including those with deposits.

Brit - you can actually buy though we're lead to believe - you're just unwilling to compromise on location.

I bought my first place as a "middle class 20-35 year old" but I did have to relocate to a better value part of London in order to do so.

StevieJ

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

This is probably the best post I have read on this forum to date, and it shows how blinkered we have become as a nation without realising.
If we live in a free market, stop tampering with the property market and let builders build unto they want to stop

Are you joking, I wouldn't like to see the end result :eek:

RenovationMan

Linda_D wrote: »

I'm a homeowner and have paid off all the mortgage on my house but would still love to see house prices drop by a considerable amount so others get the chance to afford to buy their own homes.

This stance is taken by many 'home owning bears' on this forum. Unsurprisingly this rare breed is almost exclusively populated by people who bought pre-boom and have seen 300% HPI. They can be very generous with this free money, safe in the knowledge that they'll never be in negative equity.