Ministers get ready to go for green-belt grab

A._Badger

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i

i doubt you would be too pleased if the govt came along and forced you to sell your garden to the govt for £2k, then built a house on it and sold it for half a million quid!!

And there's the rub. If these were state owned houses it might be one thing, but where would be 'justice' in grabbing farmer Giles' field, letting MegaBuildCo profit from erecting a breeze block rabbit hutch on it, which someone else would snap-up with alacrity and then make a handsome profit on in a few years time?

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i doubt you would be too pleased if the govt came along and forced you to sell your garden to the govt for £2k, then built a house on it and sold it for half a million quid!!

I'd sooner than than that they built a high speed rail line on it...

homelessskilledworker

A._Badger wrote: »

What, essentially, is the difference between land and any other commodity? Why not apply the same 'it's not fair' to houses, businesses, antiques, savings, or any other asset?

The collectivism around this place gets quite scary some days.

Yes it does get quite scary, you want to listen to yourself(and I dare say the 24/7 rampers who log in monday mornings).

Right now badly needed homes are not being built in fear of crashing those that are indebted. What is more important, putting decent shelter over peoples heads, are holding up a bubble so shallow people or even greedy investors can say their house is worth £xyz.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

I'd sooner than than that they built a high speed rail line on it...

not if i moved in

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

Which is what I am suggesting - happy for the farmer to be paid what his 'farm' land is worth and extra for hassle and inconvenience but I don't see why he should benefit from the change in the rules for which surely everyone in the country should benefit equally - after all we will all lose some of the benefit of having so much green belt.

Is there some philosophical distinction being made here between land and other kinds of private property?

If not, the suggestion is monstrous in its implications.

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Yes it does get quite scary, you want to listen to yourself(and I dare say the 24/7 rampers who log in monday mornings).

Right now badly needed homes are not being built in fear of crashing those that are indebted. What is more important, putting decent shelter over peoples heads, are holding up a bubble so shallow people or even greedy investors can say their house is worth £xyz.

this is not a discussion about whether the houses get built or not though is it, it is about who gets to keep the profit made from selling the houses.

chewmylegoff

A._Badger wrote: »

Is there some philosophical distinction being made here between land and other kinds of private property?

If not, the suggestion is monstrous in its implications.

it's not even just land, but specifically one particular type of land that is subject to certain legal restrictions. someone else who had bought a different sort of land would for some reason be allowed to keep the profits from owning that land.

homelessskilledworker

michaels wrote: »

Which is what I am suggesting - happy for the farmer to be paid what his 'farm' land is worth and extra for hassle and inconvenience but I don't see why he should benefit from the change in the rules for which surely everyone in the country should benefit equally - after all we will all lose some of the benefit of having so much green belt.

Farmers are quite a breed until themselves, but they are not stupid. All you have to say to the farmers is we will buy your land and this price with some decent profit(not nearly as much as the going rate for building land), and if they don't like it they just ask the farmer a few miles down the road and see if he takes the offer up.

michaels

I don't understand - if a public utility like a train line or third runway is built then the land can be compulsorily purchased but if it is for a public utility such as additional housing it can never be?

As another example, although you may own a property you do not own the rights to any minerals that are subsequently found to lie underneath the land.

A._Badger wrote: »

Is there some philosophical distinction being made here between land and other kinds of private property?

If not, the suggestion is monstrous in its implications.

A._Badger

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Yes it does get quite scary, you want to listen to yourself(and I dare say the 24/7 rampers who log in monday mornings).

Right now badly needed homes are not being built in fear of crashing those that are indebted. What is more important, putting decent shelter over peoples heads, are holding up a bubble so shallow people or even greedy investors can say their house is worth £xyz.

There are plenty of affordable houses in this country, as has been repeatedly proved here, and plenty of available land to build more on.

They aren't as cheap as some greedy malcontents would wish and they aren't in the locations they would prefer to live in.

Sad old world, isn't it? I mean we don't all dine on caviar and drink Cristal, either and where's the justice in that, comrade?