The UK must get this property market going

homelessskilledworker

Just to spoil this boards fun for just one minute, and attempt to have a serious debate on housing rather than the bear/bull !!!!!ing that it is most days and from the usual suspects I will at least attempt to have a go.

Contary to popular belief I want(I pray even) a bouyant property market.
More than anything I would like to see a lively market for those aged between 20 years and 40 years old. Apart from throwing money at it I do not care what the Government does but just do something.
Through just chatting with past generations of my family and even through the experiences I have witnessed myself, nothing lifts young men and women more than tht magical feeling of being sat in the victorian old terraced house that has been gutted, drinking a mug of tea on a wooden drum, while your mates pop around to give wanted/unwanted advice, it is male bonding at it's best.

Apart from the massive social benefits and strong sence of worth and family stability that this brings, a strong housing market with all the dozens of other knock on effects that lift the economy.


I do not see this happening now, You go through the decades and you quite often see the window of aspiration where through normal jobs people could create HOMES.

Many of you know that I will benefit even more if prices fall further, I am not trying to hide that. But I would much prefer to see some kind of Government action to get a 100,000 per month property sales scenario going where it would lift this country economically and far more importantly socially.

This government need to be doing something, building is probably my best bet,

Any thoughts anyone??

IronWolf

It would be relatively simple fix to be honest. Just introduce rent controls. This will set a soft cap on house prices, and prevent increased prices due to BTL speculation.

Even New York, one of the most capitalist, "free market" cities in the world has rent controls.

When demand is booming, start a state owned construction business (note the word business, i.e. it should be profitable) and build more houses if the private sector doesn't take up the slack.

There you go, I have fixed the housing market.

CLAPTON

IronWolf wrote: »

It would be relatively simple fix to be honest. Just introduce rent controls. This will set a soft cap on house prices, and prevent increased prices due to BTL speculation.

Even New York, one of the most capitalist, "free market" cities in the world has rent controls.

When demand is booming, start a state owned construction business (note the word business, i.e. it should be profitable) and build more houses if the private sector doesn't take up the slack.

There you go, I have fixed the housing market.

do you actually know anything about new york rent controls and do you seriously think it a good model?


obviously a state owned construction company could easily be profitable;
it would have access to cheap land and cheap money and could bypass planning laws and of course provide jobs for hard working unionised labour.

it could easily bankrupt the private sector but that would be alright because they could be re-employed as rent assessors, staff appeals tribunals, lawyers etc

the government construction business could be funded by having a 'soft' cap on share prices and company profits; decided by independant assessors of course; the opportunities for social engineering are endless

Wookster

Two components are missing - a supply of properties and a market.

A market means those who can't afford to keep their houses are foreclosed and those houses sold at market prices, rather than the extend & pretend we're seeing so much of.

ILW

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Just to spoil this boards fun for just one minute, and attempt to have a serious debate on housing rather than the bear/bull !!!!!ing that it is most days and from the usual suspects I will at least attempt to have a go.

Contary to popular belief I want(I pray even) a bouyant property market.
More than anything I would like to see a lively market for those aged between 20 years and 40 years old. Apart from throwing money at it I do not care what the Government does but just do something.
Through just chatting with past generations of my family and even through the experiences I have witnessed myself, nothing lifts young men and women more than tht magical feeling of being sat in the victorian old terraced house that has been gutted, drinking a mug of tea on a wooden drum, while your mates pop around to give wanted/unwanted advice, it is male bonding at it's best.

Apart from the massive social benefits and strong sence of
Any thoughts anyone??

Is this a first tentative step in your "coming out"?
Will it be the benefits of an active musical theatre industry next?

paulmapp8306

Government owned company errecting cheap, flat packed homes. 50% are kept as social housing - meaning the demand for private rent goes down - while the other 50% are sold for cost +5% but ONLY to people currently renting, who own no other property, and who intend to live in the home.

This gives access relativel cheap housing for those who just want a home of their own, reduces rent for those who dont, reduces the cost of "housing benefit" due to lower rents and fewer claimants - while at the same tim emaking a proffit for the government on the house sales and not forcing traditional builders out of buisiness as there will always be those "higher up" in the wage scale who wont consider flat packed homes.

Dont see a down side.

IronWolf

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you actually know anything about new york rent controls and do you seriously think it a good model?


obviously a state owned construction company could easily be profitable;
it would have access to cheap land and cheap money and could bypass planning laws and of course provide jobs for hard working unionised labour.

it could easily bankrupt the private sector but that would be alright because they could be re-employed as rent assessors, staff appeals tribunals, lawyers etc

the government construction business could be funded by having a 'soft' cap on share prices and company profits; decided by independant assessors of course; the opportunities for social engineering are endless

I wouldn't want the state business to take over business from private, it would purely be there to step up supply when the private sector wasn't doing so sufficiently. For example it could set a target for overall supply increase for the year to manage the supply/demand balance, forecast what the private sector will deliver and then make up the difference. It should be profitable but not aim to maximise overall profits by increasing volume.

I don't think it would need to use "state powers" to get cheap land etc, just operate like a normal company, but use the governments AAA borrowing facility. It could mainly be focussed on social housing, so rather than pay housing benefit to private landlords, the state could in effect rent to itself.

chewmylegoff

The government will never set up a state owned construction enterprise - look at the track record of both parties on privatisation.

The closest we're likely to get is the government paying the private sector to build houses which are then used as social housing. If that happens expect the arrangement be corrupt and riddled with fraud, and the housing produced to be the worst quality imaginable, and the result being disgusting sink estates.

paulmapp8306

Arnt we debating what they SHOULD do - not what the WILL do ?

abaxas

IronWolf wrote: »

It would be relatively simple fix to be honest. Just introduce rent controls. This will set a soft cap on house prices, and prevent increased prices due to BTL speculation.

Good idea!

Another option would be council tax as a %age of value with increases/decreases relative to land reg prices in area.

Set at 1% the market would rebalance within months.

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The closest we're likely to get is the government paying the private sector to build houses which are then used as social housing. If that happens expect the arrangement be corrupt and riddled with fraud, and the housing produced to be the worst quality imaginable, and the result being disgusting sink estates.

well that exactly how most social (council) housing was built.

i.e. by the private sector directly commissioned by councils.
the overall results were good quality, relatively spacious properties.
the fact than much of the property degenerated into sink estates was a reflection on the tenants and not the property build.