Bole Blasts Nimby Boomers with Brickbats

Turnbull2000

The government, councillors and local authority will cave in to the protests. I guarantee it. I also see there's another well organised, highly vocal anti-housing group running nearby. I'm losing count of them!

http://www.throckleygreenbelt.org

http://www.throckleygreenbelt.org/wp...11-protest.jpg

NO TO HOUSING

There you have it. I'm afraid the pro-housing folk will lose this war.

Turnbull2000

And if anyone hadn't noticed, the most popular comments on the likes of the BBC, Telegraph and Mail etc are all ferociously against greenfield housing, or large scale building of any kind.

ruggedtoast

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

The government, councillors and local authority will cave in to the protests. I guarantee it. I also see there's another well organised, highly vocal anti-housing group running nearby. I'm losing count of them!

http://www.throckleygreenbelt.org

http://www.throckleygreenbelt.org/wp...11-protest.jpg



There you have it. I'm afraid the pro-housing folk will lose this war.

Your picture sums up the generational conflict:

chem1st

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

And if anyone hadn't noticed, the most popular comments on the likes of the BBC, Telegraph and Mail etc are all ferociously against greenfield housing, or large scale building of any kind.

If these people were around when I was homeless, I would have assaulted them in the hope of securing a temporary roof over my head, especially if it was cold.

These people should be conscripted and sent out to Afghanistan. It's hardly fair that we send young people without homes to war for them to return to cities and towns unable to house them. All homeowners should be enlisted and serve overseas. NIMBYs first of all. If their slave boxes are so valuable to them, they should be fighting for the country.

ash28

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

The government, councillors and local authority will cave in to the protests. I guarantee it. I also see there's another well organised, highly vocal anti-housing group running nearby. I'm losing count of them!

http://www.throckleygreenbelt.org

http://www.throckleygreenbelt.org/wp...11-protest.jpg



There you have it. I'm afraid the pro-housing folk will lose this war.

Newburn - one of the places being discussed by them.
Throckley, Newburn and Walbottle are very close to each other.





I understand the cause was an underground culvert that collapsed - Newcastle City Council doesn't even know how many underground culverts there are. They know of 42 - they are going to find and map the rest and they are handing out planning permission for housing around the city sometimes not knowing what's underground.

The flats have been demolished.

A Victorian era culvert was found running under the playing fields at the Royal Grammar School few months ago.

Throckley residents are objecting (amongst other things) to the handing over of the school playing fields for housing, Throckley Primary School - 30 houses and Throckley First School - 70 houses.

I happen to agree that school playing fields should be kept as school playing fields - I had one, my children had one and I don't see why my grandchildren shouldn't benefit from one.

I have absolutely no objection to new houses being built, in fact they should be built - but as I've said before - in the right places and imho school playing fields aren't the right places.

the_flying_pig

i agree that they shouldn't be built on but school playing fields are pretty much an irrelavance, an incredibly unusual & special case.

most measure perhaps around an acre or two in size.

the uk's total surface area is around 60m acres.

ILW

I believe we should have more housing, but not on the woodland that I see out of my bedroom window in the mornings.

And also if it is just being built to house breeding chavs.

Percy1983

The NIMBYS picture makes me laugh, reminds me of my local wetherspoons.

John_Pierpoint

Generali wrote: »

Here's an idea.

The Government targets a series of areas which are possibly suitable for building on. They then buy up the local land, with a CPO if necessary. The Government then sells individual plots of various sizes to individuals, the price of the plot including a mark-up over the cost of farmland to include building local amenities such as schools, roads, putting in utilities etc.

People have xx months to build on the land before it reverts to the Government at the original price paid to be resold to prevent land hoarding.

That's pretty much how new suburbs are built in Aus and it works jolly well. For people lower down the 'housing ladder', part of the new suburb/town could be sold to builders for the construction of flats or terraces. These places would have an effective price cap put on them by the availability of larger, generally more desirable plots.

Funny that is almost exactly how the Land Fit for Heroes built the New Towns.

A._Badger wrote: »

All that happens is the property spivs move in, acres of productive farmland are ploughed-up so that rabbit hutches can be plonked down without the slightest thought to considerations of water supply, transport, work, health care or just about any other needs.

The evidence is there for anyone to see. It began in 'planned' hell holes like Stevenage and Harlow and is being continued today in dumps like Ashford and Crawley.

As you can see some people did not like the result in Stevenage & Harlow.
Personally I think the problem is the people not the architecture. Architectural determinism does not work.
For some reason the middle classes refused to play and such planned "communities" became areas of lower cost housing for "chavs". Now they are under attack as the government, who overloaded the country with economic migrants, tried to stuff the planned green spaces with flats to house the UK's rapidly rising semi skilled population.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

More high speed rail links to the capital with juicy season ticket prices - problem solved.;)

This was a reference to Kent. It is the only home county with a new high speed rail network. However it commands premium prices, unaffordable on semi skilled wages.

A sustainable population for the UK is about 30 million.

I have no idea what a sustainable population for former colonies is, be they Australia, Canada, RSA or USA. and that is before we get onto climate change denying.

GeorgeHowell

"Your picture sums up the generational conflict:"

There is no generational conflict. A minority of ageist losers with chips on their shoulders the size of sacks of King Edwards would like to stir one up. What will they do when they reach the age that the Baby Boomers are now ? Change tack and turn their attention to attacking the young ? Or move into static caravans and give their homes to their children ? Or perhaps come to their senses and cringe when they think back to what daft pillocks they were when they were young ?