Bole Blasts Nimby Boomers with Brickbats

the_flying_pig

ukcarper wrote: »

Are people living in overcrowded conditions in the area where the housing will be built probably not. Look at many of the towns outside London a lot of people moved to them from nearer London and the population in those areas increased considerably.

Are you theorising that people are mostly currently living in the 'right' places, that the pressure on infrastructure is presently at an acceptable level in most places, but that building more houses would cause so many people to move to the 'wrong' places that the pressure on infrastructure would get all messed up? This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

BobQ

Addressing so-called nimbys, Boles says: "It's my job to make the arguments to these people [people who oppose development that if they carry on writing letters their kids are never going to get a place with a garden to bring up their grandkids.

Its always reassuring to see a politician taking a moral stand. In contrast to his unapologetic defence of using taxpayer's money to reportedly subsidise Hebrew lessons to enable him to better communicate with his civil partner.

ruggedtoast

Of course there is an alternative to this. Every older couple or person who is knocking around in a 3 plus bedroom house while their kids and grandkids suffer a cramped rental, could agree to move into a granny flat or an annex.

This would free up a lot of houses too.

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Are you theorising that people are mostly currently living in the 'right' places, that the pressure on infrastructure is presently at an acceptable level in most places, but that building more houses would cause so many people to move to the 'wrong' places that the pressure on infrastructure would get all messed up? This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

They have ruled out building on green belt so the areas they build on would be away from where most people are and the infrastructure is not adequate.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Of course there is an alternative to this. Every older couple or person who is knocking around in a 3 plus bedroom house while their kids and grandkids suffer a cramped rental, could agree to move into a granny flat or an annex.

This would free up a lot of houses too.

I suppose another solution would to build properties older people would be happy to downsize to instead of barrack blocks with very high service charges.

A._Badger

ukcarper wrote: »

I suppose another solution would to build properties older people would be happy to downsize to instead of barrack blocks with very high service charges.

We'd long ago established that Toastie has yet to grasp the notion of private property. S/he probably won't 'get it' until someone liberates that favourite Che poster from the bedroom wall.

Always assuming yurts have bedrooms.

chewmylegoff

Conrad wrote: »

I'm viewing 2 lots of agricultural land tomorrow with a view to holding and tyring for permission later or sub dividing and selling on using a dedicated website I would create, something along the lines of small gift parcels for the grandchild or something.

It seems agri land is all of a sudden flying off the shelves. The very worse can happen is I own a piece a land I can camp on (the one I have in mind has nice coniferous woodland too), and one day sell it on or just keep it for fun. I am checking on what the ongoing upkeep costs will be but they so far don't onerous. Other ideas could be a karting track / archery centre / camp site / climbing centre. They don't make land anymore so I forsee the demand for ones only little bit of English land increasing sharply.

Or you could set up a landbanking fraud and sell it to clueless idiots. Probably the best way to make money out of it.

chewmylegoff

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Of course there is an alternative to this. Every older couple or person who is knocking around in a 3 plus bedroom house while their kids and grandkids suffer a cramped rental, could agree to move into a granny flat or an annex.

This would free up a lot of houses too.

The other option is just to pass a law stating that noone is authorised to live for longer than, say, 65 years. Anyone passing that age (convieniently all boomers) gets shot and turned into fertiliser. Boomers, you only have yourselves to blame.

A._Badger

ukcarper wrote: »

They have ruled out building on green belt so the areas they build on would be away from where most people are and the infrastructure is not adequate.

True, but there's plenty of water. All those lovely flood plains in the South East.....

The real irony is that parts of the SE (Dover round to Brighton for example) actually have very few jobs and those that there are tend to be poorly paid.

Still, never let facts get in the way of junior common room politics, eh?

A._Badger

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The other option is just to pass a law stating that noone is authorised to live for longer than, say, 65 years. Anyone passing that age (convieniently all boomers) gets shot and turned into fertiliser. Boomers, you only have yourselves to blame.

Or perhaps we could have a law that says anyone who reaches the age of 30 and hasn't been sufficiently successful to buy a house could be turned into dog food?

I'm trying to be helpful here and keep pace with Toastie's level of socialist humanity.